check_ethics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only contains a short label with no explanation of side effects, return values, permissions, or what the 'check' involves. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 brief, which is concise, but it sacrifices clarity. It is not a tautology, but it is under-specified. The phrase 'Neural Welfare Check' is likely a domain-specific term that is not defined, so it fails the 'every sentence earns its place' test because it doesn't communicate enough.

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 details, the description is the sole source of context. It is far too incomplete to allow an agent to understand what the tool does, when to call it, or what to expect from it. The tool's behavior remains entirely opaque.

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 description need not explain parameter syntax or meaning. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no unnecessary information, but also no useful context about what the check covers.

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' suggests the tool performs a welfare/ethics check on a neural system, but it lacks a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by topic, but the exact action is vague. A more explicit phrase like 'Check the ethical/welfare status of the neural system' would be clearer.

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. With a large list of sibling tools like tcai_metrics, get_metrics, and sensor_status, the description provides no context about scenarios where check_ethics is the appropriate choice.

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