compute_governance_taint

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles missing derivation chains, or what the output format is. This leaves significant ambiguity for a compute tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly communicates the core purpose without redundancy.

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 minimal for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. It does not mention the return value, possible error cases, or any prerequisites (e.g., must have lineage resolved). Given the likely complexity of a governance taint calculation, this is incomplete.

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 50% (revokedSources is described, artifactId is not). The description adds the concept of 'derivation chain' and implies artifactId identifies the artifact, but it does not fully compensate for the missing schema description on artifactId or clarify how the inputs interact beyond a general statement.

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 computes a governance taint level, using specific input concepts (derivation chain, revoked sources). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like evaluate_revocation_impact, which focuses on broader impact rather than a computed taint score.

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 implies the tool is used when a taint level is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate, such as evaluate_revocation_impact or resolve_lineage.

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