veritas_adversary_gate

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

Returns JSON with verdict, fragility, attacks_tested, attacks_degraded. Discloses threshold trigger. No annotations provided, so description adequately covers behavioral aspects.

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 defines purpose, second specifies usage and output. No filler, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, output format. Lacks detailed explanation of attack transforms but overall complete for a gate tool given input schema richness.

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%; the description does not add extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states the tool 'stress-tests the claim against attack transforms' and labels it as the 'final robustness check', distinguishing it from sibling gate tools. The verb+resource combo is specific.

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 says 'Use this as the final robustness check' and specifies the fragility threshold. No explicit exclusions or alternatives named, but the context implies it's the last step.

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