compliance_brain__secret_sentinel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and provides unusually useful constraints: no network, filesystem, shell, or secret access, plus an isolated no-network sandbox and a pinned hash. It does not explain the practical meaning of 'PROVISIONAL C/79' or describe result behavior, so the disclosure is valuable but incomplete.

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 definition is compact and places the concrete review purpose before the capability details. However, the leading '[Warden PROVISIONAL C/79 ✓]' label and truncated pinned hash are cryptic metadata that add clutter without clearly helping tool selection or invocation.

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 one-parameter review tool, the accepted subject, security scope, and execution restrictions are adequately covered. Because there is no output schema, the missing explanation of whether the result is a findings list, severity assessment, pass/fail verdict, or remediation guidance is a meaningful gap.

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%, and the description largely reinforces the schema's statement that task contains code or a skill bundle, while adding the two specific review categories. It does not clarify whether task should contain raw source, serialized bundle content, or a path, nor provide size or formatting expectations.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: reviewing code or a skill bundle for credential-exfiltration patterns and least-privilege violations. This clearly establishes the security-review niche, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as warden__audit or build_brain__ship_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 input types and risk categories imply when the tool is useful, particularly before trusting or shipping code that handles credentials. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisite, exclusion, or routing rule for choosing this tool over warden__audit, warden__trust, or other gate tools.

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