chamber_hop_gate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool only gates (does not seal/open/SettleHop), which is a key behavioral trait. It also mentions that extras lead to reject.extra, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it doesn't describe side effects, permissions, or what happens on success/failure beyond returning a code string.

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 extremely concise, using telegraphic style to pack essential information into a few lines. Every sentence adds value: scope, wire format, result type, and a critical caveat (PCC ≠ payment). The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details.

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 gate-evaluation tool with no output schema, the description covers the input format, required fields, result type, and a key exclusion (PCC ≠ payment). It doesn't explain the return code semantics or error handling beyond reject.extra, but given the tool's narrow scope and the schema's 100% coverage, it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaning by specifying the exact wire format (CUNI ScanChunk, not JSON) and the required fields (url etag hash agent_id), which clarifies the 'hop' parameter beyond the schema. It also notes that extras cause reject.extra, adding behavioral context for parameter handling.

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 identifies the tool as evaluating a Chamber hop-gate with exact-text code, and explicitly states it is a gate only, not seal/open/SettleHop. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the wire format and result type. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 provides clear context: it evaluates a gate, does not perform other actions, and specifies the wire format (CUNI ScanChunk) and required fields. It also notes that PCC ≠ payment, which helps avoid misuse. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the gate-only scope and wire format imply the usage context.

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