omega_execute

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses the governance process: alignment check, possible steering, execution, and auto-logging. It also mentions that external tools return steered_args instead of executing. However, it does not describe what happens if alignment fails or provide details on potential side effects (e.g., cost, state changes). Overall, fairly transparent.

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?

Two sentences: first sentence packs core purpose and behavior; second sentence provides usage guidance and return format. Every part is necessary and front-loaded. No wasted 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?

Given 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and return fields (result, cortex_verdict, seal_hash). It also distinguishes between Omega Brain and external tools. Could mention error handling or alignment failure behavior, but overall sufficient for a wrapper tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the role of each parameter in context: 'tool' is the target Omega Brain tool name, 'args' may be steered by Cortex, and 'baseline' is for alignment check. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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?

Description clearly defines tool as a Cortex-governed execution wrapper that checks alignment, steers, executes, and logs to SEAL chain. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying that it wraps Omega Brain tools (default invocation) while external tools are returned with steered_args for manual invocation. The verb 'wraps' and specific resource 'Omega Brain tools' make purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this as the default way to invoke any Omega Brain tool with full governance' and clarifies that external tools are not executed but returned for manual invocation. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, effectively differentiating from sibling tools like omega_ingest or omega_rag_query.

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