compute_governance_taint

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions computation based on derivation chain and revoked sources but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, modifies state, or has side effects. The behavior is partially implied but not explicitly stated.

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 concise sentence with no extraneous content. It is front-loaded with the key action and inputs, though could benefit from additional structure (e.g., separating purpose and 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?

The tool has 2 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the input semantics but does not specify the nature of the output (e.g., data type, range, or format). For a compute tool, explaining return values would enhance 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?

Schema coverage is 50% (only revokedSources has a description). The description adds context for artifactId by linking it to a derivation chain, but does not provide format or constraints. The parameter semantics are partially clarified but not fully compensated.

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 governance taint level for an artifact, specifying inputs like derivation chain and revoked sources. It is a specific verb+resource combination, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like compute_action_ref or aps_compute_* functions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, common scenarios, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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