preflight_action

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

The description discloses that it returns a decision with reasons and a rollback plan, enumerating possible decision values. Since there are no annotations, this provides core behavioral transparency, though it doesn't disclose any side effects or authorization requirements. It goes beyond the schema by specifying the output format.

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?

Two sentences with a clear label, immediately conveying the purpose and when to call. No wasted words.

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 decision output and when to call, but lacks parameter details, especially the meaning of 'paths'. It also doesn't clarify what to do with decisions like HOLD or DRY_RUN_ONLY, leaving some scenarios under-specified.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description only alludes to 'tool/shell command' without explaining the 'tool', 'paths', or 'command' parameters. The 'paths' parameter is entirely unexplained, leaving a significant gap for correct usage.

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 this is a governance gate that returns a safety decision before running a tool/shell command, listing specific decision values and including a rollback plan. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'devils_advocate' by being a preflight safety check rather than a critique or memory tool.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to call this before any dangerous action, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient for the stated purpose.

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