444 Bridge · Direct Organ (HIGH)

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

Annotations provide basic safety hints (non-destructive, non-idempotent, read-write). The description adds context about authority levels (HIGH / lease) and that it bypasses intent routing, which is valuable. However, it does not elaborate on potential side effects or consequences of misuse beyond these points, so not fully exhaustive.

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 very concise—four sentences. It is front-loaded with the kernel identifier and key purpose, and every sentence adds essential information without redundancy. No wasted words.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, 2 required, high schema coverage, and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage guidelines, and key constraints. It does not explain return values, but the output schema exists. Minor gap: no mention of error cases or expected behavior when parameters are missing.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that organ and tool_name are required, but does not add new details about other parameters like actor_id, arguments, or session_id beyond what the schema provides. No parameter-specific guidance is given.

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 purpose: a low-level, direct organ call that bypasses intent routing, requiring organ and tool_name. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool arif_route, which is the safer default. The description is specific and actionable.

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?

Explicitly advises agents to prefer arif_route instead, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. This directly addresses the decision between this tool and its alternative, making it highly helpful for selection.

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