Osiris.Precheck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral content by naming the three validations performed (invariant, duplicate, budget), but it never says whether the tool blocks the action, what a negative verdict means, or whether calling it has side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core intent arrives immediately. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so it does not lose points for verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema covers all parameters. What remains missing is the decision semantics of a gate tool: whether a failed precheck should abort the action and whether human approval is involved.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (action, args, reason, task_id) are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, not even a note that 'action' is the field being checked.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it verifies an action before dispatch, and enumerates the three check families (invariant, doublon, budget). An agent can tell this is a pre-execution gate rather than a logging or planning tool, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"avant qu'elle parte" implies the timing (before the action is dispatched), which is implicit usage guidance. There is no explicit when-not, no mention of what to do if the check fails, and no routing against siblings like osiris.plan or osiris.checkpoint.

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