alignment

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says it 'flags conflicts,' which hints at output but does not clarify whether the tool blocks the action, returns a detailed report, or has side effects. It also doesn't state if it is read-only or requires special permissions, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is concise with no filler or repetition, earning its place by communicating the core functionality efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose but omits important context like the return format, error behavior, and any prerequisites. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is only partially complete, leaving the agent to infer how to use and interpret the tool.

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 input schema has only one parameter (proposed_action) with no description, and the tool description does not explain the parameter's format, allowed values, or examples. The description's phrase 'proposed action' maps to the parameter name, adding minimal meaning, but it fails to compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 checks a proposed action against canon/rules and flags conflicts with non-negotiable rules, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like preflight_action or devils_advocate, so it misses the sibling differentiation component.

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 usage: use this tool to validate a proposed action against rules before proceeding. But it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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