veritas_incentive_gate

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it returns JSON with verdict (PASS | MODEL_BOUND), dominance float, and reason_code. The threshold and trigger condition are clearly stated. No side effects are mentioned but the tool appears to be a pure computation.

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 concisely covering purpose, metric, threshold, effect, and return format. No fluff, front-loaded with the gate number and metric.

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 the complex nested parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the gate's evaluation logic, return format, and triggering condition. It doesn't detail how claim fields are used, but the schema provides that.

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 all subfields of 'claim'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 states it detects evidence monoculture by measuring source dominance with a specific metric (max_count_from_single_source / independent_set_size) and threshold (0.50). This distinguishes it from sibling gates like veritas_evidence_gate which likely handle evidence validation differently.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to guard against single-source bias in evidence' and specifies the condition that triggers MODEL_BOUND. While it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives, the context of sibling gates implies appropriate usage.

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