check_ethics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits such as side effects, safety, or return behavior. The description offers none of this, revealing nothing about what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 very short, but this is not appropriate conciseness; it is under-specification. 'IRB Neural Welfare Check' is a bare phrase that omits essential information, so it does not earn credit for being well-structured or front-loaded with useful content.

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?

Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the tool's description should still explain its purpose and expected results. This description is completely inadequate, giving no sense of what the tool does, when to use it, or what to expect.

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 trivially complete (100% coverage). Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since there are none.

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 essentially a restatement of the tool name 'check_ethics' with added jargon. It does not specify an action verb or clearly state what the tool does, making it nearly tautological and unhelpful for distinguishing this tool from siblings.

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 or how it differs from the many sibling tools. The description provides no context for selecting this tool over alternatives, leaving the agent without any usage criteria.

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