aga_disclose_claim

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool may 'Auto-substitutes if sensitivity denied' which is valuable behavioral context not apparent from the schema alone. However, it doesn't explain what 'sensitivity denied' means, what gets substituted, or other important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects.

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 extremely concise at just 12 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the parenthetical '(Claim 2)' feels somewhat cryptic and doesn't clearly earn its place in such a brief description.

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 4 parameters (2 with enums), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how the different disclosure modes work, what constitutes a 'claim' in this system, or the implications of the auto-substitution behavior mentioned.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 4 parameters, the description provides almost no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'claim_id' refers to, what the different 'mode' and 'disclosure_mode' enum values mean, or what 'requester_id' represents. The description mentions 'sensitivity' which might relate to parameters but doesn't explicitly connect to any specific parameter.

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 states the tool 'Request disclosure of a claim' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what 'disclosure' entails in this context. The parenthetical '(Claim 2)' adds some specificity but doesn't clearly differentiate this tool from siblings like 'aga_verify_artifact' or 'aga_verify_bundle' that might involve similar verification concepts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Auto-substitutes if sensitivity denied' which hints at some conditional behavior, but doesn't explain what triggers this substitution or what alternatives exist among the sibling tools. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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