seal_expect

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the real-world consequences: a miss is recorded on a tamper-evident chain and the path's autonomy license is suspended. It also discloses that declarations are safe and can only be cancelled by an operator. This gives an agent accurate expectations about side effects and reversibility.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by usage timing and safety caveats. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without padding or repetition.

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 no output schema and modest annotations, the description covers purpose, usage timing, side effects, and safety constraints. It does not explicitly explain return behavior or list sibling alternatives, but the essential context for invoking the tool correctly is present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds conceptual framing around action, key, and deadline, but does not add significant per-parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: bind yourself or the system to future work by declaring that a specific effect must be sealed by a deadline. It identifies the core resource (an expected intent keyed by action/key) and the consequence of missing the deadline. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like seal_commit or seal_admit by name, so it falls just short of full sibling distinction.

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 gives concrete guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this at decision time' with a worked example of accepting a return and declaring the refund duty. It also notes that declaring duties is always safe and that only an operator can cancel one. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to a sibling alternative, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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