prime_directive_check

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

The description discloses that the assessment is humorous and Starfleet-themed, which sets expectations for tone. However, without annotations, it does not clarify side effects (e.g., read-only) or what form the assessment takes (e.g., a verdict string, a score).

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and tone without unnecessary words.

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 is simple, but the description omits the return format or any behavioral details. It does not specify what the 'assessment' looks like, and without an output schema the agent must infer the result structure from the tool name alone.

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?

The schema already provides a full description for the single 'action' parameter, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The tool's description of 'evaluate' does not go beyond the schema's 'The action to evaluate'.

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 uses the specific verb 'evaluate' with a clear object ('whether an action violates the Prime Directive'), and adds a unique tone ('humorous Starfleet assessment'). It clearly distinguishes from generic tools and indicates the tool's scope.

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 implies the tool is for checking Prime Directive compliance, but it does not specify when to prefer it over similar tools like first_contact_assessment or diplomatic_scenario, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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