governance_360

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It outlines steps but lacks disclosure of failure modes, side effects (e.g., mutations, network calls), or what happens if any step fails. The agent is left guessing about error behavior.

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, front-loaded with action verb. The step sequence is listed concisely. No filler. Could benefit from a more structured format but is efficient.

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 complexity (7 params, no output schema), the description omits return values, error handling, and post-conditions. It explains the process but not what the agent receives as output or how to interpret results.

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 86%, so most parameters are described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond the schema, which is acceptable. No contradiction or omission noted.

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 composite nature of the tool: 'execute the full governance 360 loop' and enumerates the steps. It distinguishes it from siblings like verify_governance_block or create_access_receipt which are individual steps.

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 'This is what an agent calls on every page it reads' providing a clear when-to-use context. It doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, but the usage is well implied.

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