veritas_intake_gate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It describes core behaviors (parsing, canonicalization, validation, ID computation) and specifies return fields (verdict, claim_id, etc.), but lacks details on edge cases like error handling or side effects. Still, it is largely transparent for a validation gate.

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 three sentences: function, usage instruction, and output format. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no superfluous text.

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 tool's complexity (nested object, no output schema), the description clearly explains the output JSON fields. However, it omits explicit handling of validation failures (e.g., VIOLATION verdict implications) and error scenarios, leaving minor completeness gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully describes the 'claim' parameter and its nested fields. The description adds context about partial evaluation (only relevant fields required) but does not significantly augment parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 the tool's function: parsing, canonicalizing, and validating a BuildClaim's structure, with the explicit role as Gate 1/10. This distinguishes it from sibling gates by indicating it is the first step in the pipeline.

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 instructs the agent to 'Use this first to validate claim structure before running any downstream gates,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and implying alternatives are other gates for later steps.

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