research_brain__fact_gate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real value by declaring capability limits (no network, no filesystem, no shell, no secrets) and an isolated-no-net sandbox, which tells the agent the tool cannot fetch sources itself. However, it never says what the gate returns (pass/fail verdict, per-claim list, citations) or how it behaves on unverifiable claims, which is the critical missing behavior for a gate.

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 actionable instruction is front-loaded in one efficient sentence, but the surrounding bracket metadata ('Warden A/100 ✓', 'pinned sha256:a47d1120ec74...') is machine-ish boilerplate that consumes space without guiding invocation. Roughly half the text does not earn its place.

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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what to feed it and its sandbox constraints. The main remaining gap is the shape of the verdict it produces, which an agent would want before routing work through a 'gate'.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is already high. The description adds a little by narrowing the intent to claims that are factual, legal, or financial, telling the agent what kind of text belongs in 'task'.

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 core sentence gives a specific verb and object: verify factual, legal, or financial claims against a dated primary source. An agent can grasp the function immediately, though the bracketed '[Warden A/100 ✓]' prefix and the sha256 pin are opaque noise that don't help identify the tool. No sibling (e.g., ship_gate) is named to sharpen the boundary.

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?

'before anything ships' implies the trigger point, which is useful timing guidance, but there are no explicit when-not conditions and no named alternatives such as ship_gate or idea_scout. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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