laya_gate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states that the tool returns specific risk probabilities and a severity level, and it notes the ~15 ms latency. It does not state explicit side effects, but as a gating/classification tool, its read-only nature is reasonably implied. It avoids contradicting anything and adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then outputs/latency, then actionable threshold advice. Every sentence contributes essential information with no filler.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return structures. It covers the when, what, and how-to-act, leaving out only parameter details and explicit sibling differentiation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most situations.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. It references 'untrusted text' which implies the 'text' parameter, but it never explains the 'timeout_ms' parameter, its default, or how it affects behavior. The description adds little beyond what the parameter names already imply.

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: a safety gate for untrusted text before it enters context. It names the specific function (returning jailbreak, prompt_injection, and sensitive_data probabilities plus a harm severity level), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from typical tools.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: apply to untrusted text before it enters context, use a threshold of ~0.5-0.7, and quarantine or summarise rather than trust the raw text. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions among siblings, but the context and expected workflow are clear.

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