check_ethics

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosing side effects, read-only behavior, or return semantics. It discloses none of this, leaving the tool a complete black box.

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 short (four words), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to provide any meaningful content, so the words do not 'earn their 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter context, the description must explain what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It does none of this, making it completely inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is technically complete (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter information, but the baseline for 0 params is 4, and there is nothing missing on this dimension.

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 'IRB Neural Welfare Check' is a noun phrase, not a clear verb+resource. It lacks a specific action verb and does not differentiate this tool from sibling status/check tools like get_system_status or get_metrics. The purpose is ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The description gives no indication of the appropriate invocation scenario.

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