chimera_constrain

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

Given no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: it checks confidence, forbidden capabilities, and hallucinations. However, it does not explain what happens on fail (e.g., blocking vs warning), nor does it mention the 'strict' parameter's effect on exception versus warning behavior, leaving gaps in understanding.

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, information-dense sentence with no waste. It efficiently conveys the core action and key checks, earning 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?

Despite the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description is brief and omits return value details beyond 'pass/fail with audit trace'. It does not explain audit trace content, usage context, or how the constraint middleware integrates with other tools.

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 description adds no parameter-level information beyond the input schema. With 67% schema description coverage, some parameters lack descriptions (e.g., tool_name, detect_strategy), and the tool description does not compensate for these gaps.

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 applies constraint middleware, checking confidence, forbidden capabilities, and hallucinations, returning pass/fail with an audit trace. It is specific about the resource and action, but does not distinguish from sibling middleware tools like chimera_safety_check or chimera_detect.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, when not to use, or how it differs from sibling tools, which is critical for a middleware tool among many similar ones.

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