assure_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Evaluate' and 'Returns' imply a read-only operation with no side effects, which is a modest step. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify state, nor does it disclose any permission requirements, logging, or reversibility—important for an authoritative decision tool.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then states the output. This is model conciseness—short and dense without redundancy.

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?

Despite the tool's high complexity (8 parameters, nested evidence object, no output schema), the description gives minimal context. It does not explain what a GATRI assurance record is, how to interpret the evidence fields, or any thresholds. An agent would be left guessing about the meaning of the returned record and the weight of each evidence field, making effective invocation risky.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It fails to do so entirely. It mentions 'specific action' and 'context' but gives no hints about agentId, actionType, impact, sensitivity, or the large evidence object. An agent would have to rely solely on the schema, which is already present but the description adds zero value.

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 verb 'Evaluate' and the resource 'whether an AI agent has earned authority to perform one specific action in one context', which is specific and action-oriented. It also mentions the return of a 'GATRI assurance record', adding specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like risk_assessment or decide_action, so it misses the top score.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose it over gatri_trust_score, compliance_check, or decide_action. The description's generic phrasing offers no decision support.

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