check_autonomy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool returns a decision based on inputs, but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, modifies state, or requires specific permissions. The behavioral detail is adequate but minimal.

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?

Two sentences: first sentence states purpose, second provides usage guidance and parameter overview. No redundant information, front-loaded with key action. Every sentence earns 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?

The description lacks details about the output format (e.g., boolean, string) and valid values for 'safety_level'. Without an output schema, the agent needs to infer what 'decision' means. For a check tool, this is a gap that reduces full autonomy.

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 0%, so the description adds meaning by grouping parameters: required 'tool_name' and 'safety_level', plus optional context (material, time, temperatures). It clarifies the purpose of each parameter group but does not specify valid values for 'safety_level' (e.g., enum).

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 clearly states the verb 'check' and resource 'autonomy' (whether the agent may execute a tool without human confirmation). It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_autonomy_level' by specifying use context: 'Use this before calling confirm-level tools to decide whether to proceed or ask.'

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?

The description explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this before calling confirm-level tools to decide whether to proceed or ask.' It does not provide exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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