devils_advocate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and succeeds: it lists the types of issues flagged (contradictions, superseded facts, missing evidence, canon conflicts, overconfidence, dishonest omissions, irreversible actions) and the exact verdict values returned (STOP/RECONSIDER/PROCEED WITH CAUTION/PROCEED). This goes far beyond what structured fields could provide.

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 efficient sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds value: what it does, what it returns, and when to call it.

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, the description lists the verdict types and thoroughly describes its behavioral scope. Minor gaps remain, such as what 'canon' refers to and how this relates to sibling tools like preflight_action, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. The description mentions 'claim or proposed action,' which maps loosely to the 'claim' and 'action' parameters, but the boolean semantics of 'action' and the purpose of 'namespace' are entirely unexplained. This is a clear gap for a low-coverage schema.

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purpose: to challenge a claim or proposed action against memory and canon, enumerating specific checks (contradictions, superseded facts, missing evidence, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('challenge') and distinguishes the tool from sibling memory operations like remember, recall, and preflight_action.

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 explicitly says 'Call before consequential moves,' providing clear timing guidance. It implies use when an action could have significant consequences, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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