credence_gate

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the blocking and synonym-expansion mechanism, but does not disclose what happens when a call is blocked (error or other response), authentication requirements, or side effects. More detail on behavior beyond the stated mechanism would improve transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with 4 sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Pre-execution epistemic gate'), each sentence adds value, and there is no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) but the description does not explain the return behavior (e.g., what the agent receives when a call is blocked vs allowed). It also does not address practical details like idempotency or error conditions. Given the gate's critical role, more completeness is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for 3 parameters. The description does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so it adds marginal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool is a 'pre-execution epistemic gate' that 'block[s] irreversible tool calls that embed unverified constraint values'. It specifies the verb (block) and resource (irreversible tool calls), and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like credence_scan or credence_verify.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Call BEFORE write_file, execute_code, send_request, deploy, or any tool that would embed a user-stated value into code or infrastructure.' This provides clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the positive guidance is strong.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.