check_draft_json

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers strong output semantics: the keys returned and the precise truth conditions for summary.blocked, including the deliberate decision that unverified counts as blocked. It is silent on input-side behavior (e.g. what use_model triggers), so it is not fully complete.

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?

Front-loaded with the key differentiator and the gate boolean. The closing line ('a gate that treats it as fine is decoration') is rhetorical but reinforces a genuinely important semantic, so it earns most of its space.

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 output schema already exists, so the return-value explanation is partly redundant, though the blocked semantics add value. The real gap is input completeness: a 6-parameter tool with zero parameter documentation anywhere is under-specified for correct invocation.

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?

Six parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. Fields like draft vs draft_path, evidence_dir vs evidence_json, and use_model are entirely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and mutual exclusivity.

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 names a specific verb+resource (the same check as check_draft) and its distinguishing property (returned as structured JSON). An agent can immediately separate it from check_draft without opening either schema.

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 states exactly when to prefer this tool: 'when a pipeline, a CI job or another agent needs to gate on the result rather than read it.' The alternative (check_draft) is named, so the selection condition is explicit.

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