veritas_cost_gate

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

With no annotations, the description fully describes behavior: computes max(cost_i / bound_i), checks against redline thresholds, and returns verdicts and reason codes. It also notes that the gate is skipped when no cost vector is declared. This provides adequate transparency for an agent.

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 four sentences long and front-loads the core purpose. It includes all necessary information without being overly verbose. Could be slightly more concise, but it effectively communicates the essential details.

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 that there is no output schema, the description explains the return format (verdict, utilization, reason_code) sufficiently. It also covers the key contextual detail about automatic skipping. The nested input schema is well-documented, so the description does not need to elaborate further.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each property of the 'claim' object. The description mentions 'cost vector' and 'cost bounds' which are part of the schema, but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the tool as 'Gate 6/10' for computing resource utilization and checking against redline thresholds. It uses a specific verb ('computes', 'checks') and specifies the resource ('cost budgets'). The sibling context suggests it is distinct from other Veritas gates like evidence or security gates.

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 states when to use: 'Use this to verify cost budgets are within limits' and when it is automatically skipped: 'skipped automatically if no cost vector is declared'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives among siblings, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to differentiate.

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