check_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It fails to specify whether the check modifies state, requires authentication, or what happens for unknown actions. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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, well-formed sentence of 12 words, front-loading the core purpose without extraneous detail. Every word is necessary.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return values (e.g., boolean, status). It does not. For a simple check tool, the lack of output description leaves the agent guessing about response format, making it incomplete for effective invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description echoes schema descriptions ('action name to check, e.g. 'delete_user', 'Optional parameters') without adding significant new meaning or clarifying parameter constraints.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'whether an action is allowed or blocked by the current covenant rules'. It distinguishes from siblings like set_rules and get_audit_log by focusing on evaluating permission rather than modifying or querying rules.

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 for checking action allowance against covenant rules, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_rules or get_audit_log. No when-not or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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