ps_execute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions validation and enforcement by a gatekeeper, hinting at security or compliance checks, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or destructive, permission requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens upon execution. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely performs actions.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how the gatekeeper operates, or the implications of execution. For a tool that likely performs actions under governance, more context is needed to understand its full behavior and outcomes.

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 description coverage is 75%, with parameters like agentId, frame, and action documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying governance via 'frame' and 'gatekeeper'. Since coverage is high (>80% threshold not met but close), the baseline is 3, as the schema does most of the work without description compensation.

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 the tool 'Execute[s] an action under PromptSpeak frame governance' with 'gatekeeper validates and enforces constraints', which gives a vague purpose. It mentions a verb ('Execute') and resource ('action'), but lacks specificity about what types of actions or constraints are involved, and doesn't differentiate from siblings like ps_execute_batch or ps_execute_dry_run.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as how it differs from ps_execute_batch for bulk operations or ps_execute_dry_run for testing. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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