veritas_dependency_gate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON with verdict and findings) and mentions the checks performed. However, it does not state whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, or has side effects. Annotations would have helped, but the description provides a reasonable behavioral overview.

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 states what it does and the gate number, second provides usage guidance and return summary. No wasted words, 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?

The description is complete for the tool's complexity: it explains the gate function, usage, and return structure. No output schema, but return format is described. Slightly more detail about edge cases or failure modes would improve completeness.

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?

Input schema has one parameter 'claim' with 100% description coverage on all nested properties. The description reiterates the purpose but adds no novel parameter semantics beyond what the schema already 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?

Description clearly states it's 'Gate 3/10' for analyzing supply-chain security via specific checks (SBOM scan, CVE check, etc.) and explicitly says 'Use this to assess third-party dependency risk before deploying or releasing.' It distinguishes from sibling gates (e.g., veritas_security_gate, veritas_adversary_gate).

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?

Description provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to assess third-party dependency risk before deploying or releasing.' It does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context of sibling gates implies differentiation. Still, clear enough for an AI agent.

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