check_safety_gate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the gate's blocking behavior (allow=false → terminate routing) and lists the three policy domains, offering useful operational context beyond a simple 'check.' It does not detail side effects or permissions, but for a read-only-style safety gate, this is adequate.

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 two sentences: the first fronts the primary function with policy specifics, and the second gives the critical operational instruction. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's gate role and the required action on denial, and an output schema exists to define return values. However, it lacks parameter explanations and explicit usage conditions relative to sibling tools, leaving moderate gaps for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations.

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?

The schema has three parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. The 'P0 critical word scan' hints that the 'intent' parameter is likely scanned, but no explicit mapping is provided, leaving the agent to infer parameter meanings.

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 defines the tool as a safety gate with specific responsibilities: P0 critical word scanning and enforcement of MX-1/MX-2/MX-3 policies. This distinguishes it from siblings like check_permission and classify_intent, and the behavioral consequence (terminate routing on allow=false) further specifies its unique role.

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 states when this tool must be used by the scheduling agent (before routing) and mandates termination on a negative result, providing clear contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full exclusions.

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