no_fake_done

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is fail-closed and blocks unproven claims, and clarifies that file-exists is not considered a valid receipt. It does not detail what happens on success, error output, or whether the tool is pure (no side effects), leaving some behavior implicit.

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?

Extremely concise, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence is short and contributes to understanding the gating behavior 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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior and the critical distinction about proof. It misses some operational details (e.g., return format, interaction with siblings) but is largely complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds marginal meaning by implying that live_verified is the key proof and file_exists alone is insufficient, but does not extend parameter documentation beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States the tool's function as a fail-closed done gate that blocks completion claims lacking live proof. The verb (BLOCK) and resource (done-claims) are specific, though the phrasing is terse and not clearly differentiated from siblings like trust_freeze or decide.

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?

Clearly indicates when to use: whenever a done-word is claimed without live proof. Contrasts with the alternative (file-exists alone is insufficient) and emphasizes this is a gate. However, it doesn't specify when the tool should NOT be used or how it relates to sibling tools.

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