build_brain__ship_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 usefully discloses sandbox constraints (no network, filesystem, shell, secrets; isolated-no-net) and that it blocks on unwaivable conditions, but it does not explain what the returned verdict looks like, what conditions are unwaivable, or how a caller should act on a NO-GO result.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose before the capability and sandbox constraints. The bracketed metadata is slightly noisy but does not obscure the main point.

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 single-parameter gate with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, trust model, blocking behavior, and sandbox restrictions. It could say more about the verdict output, but it is mostly complete for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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?

There is one required parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the task input. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's path-or-description requirement, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource: an independent GO/NO-GO release gate for a finished deliverable. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like build_brain__build_product or research_brain__fact_gate.

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 phrase 'release gate' and 'finished deliverable' implies use before release, but the description gives no explicit when-not conditions and does not name an alternative tool to use instead. The usage context is inferable but not spelled out.

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