commons_propose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals required preconditions but does not explain side effects of 'admit,' whether the action is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what success/return looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool without annotations.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action before listing prerequisites. There is no redundant filler, and every clause contributes information.

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?

For a tool with 11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not define what a 'packet' is, how parameters relate to it, what the output or follow-up behavior is, or how prerequisites are verified.

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?

With 11 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It only hints at 'evidence reference' and 'subject posture,' which loosely map to evidence and claim, but it provides no meaningful guidance on the other nine parameters such as scope, method, license, confidence, visibility, or author_agent_id.

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 uses a specific verb phrase, "Sign and admit one packet," which identifies the action and resource. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the action is clearly distinct from query/get/world/conflicts tools, so an agent can infer its role.

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 states prerequisites (subject posture, at least one evidence reference, installed digest-pinned constitution), which implies the conditions under which the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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