wake_gate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses it never calls models/downstream tools, describes false-negative defense mechanism (sentinel, shadow), and outlines returns (activation trace, metrics, suggested actions). It lacks info on rate limits or auth, but the read-only nature is clear.

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 paragraph that front-loads the main purpose but uses heavy jargon (e.g., 'false-negative defense', 'sentinel', 'shadow fallback wakes') without explanation. It is not overly long but could be improved with clearer structure and less jargon.

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 the complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to set parameters, interpret outputs, or handle edge cases. The lack of parameter documentation and output format details makes it incomplete.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 10 parameters (e.g., goal, top_k, sentinel, gold_regions). It references 'sentinel' and 'shadow' but does not map them to schema fields. This is a critical gap.

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 tool's role as a 'Region-routing wake gate with false-negative defense (read-only sidecar)' and details its process (routes through retrieve -> escalate -> wake, adds sentinel and shadow fallback wakes). It also specifies outputs and what it does not do (never calls models/downstream tools), distinguishing it from siblings like route_regions.

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 mentions it is a read-only sidecar, implying non-destructive use, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like route_regions or consult_problem. There is no guidance on prerequisites or conditions.

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