aetre_check_governor

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it returns recommendations, implying it does not apply them, but it does not explicitly state whether the call is read-only, has side effects, or requires any special handling beyond the API key mentioned in the schema. This lack of explicit behavioral disclosure is a gap, though not contradictory.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key condition. No extraneous words, and the information density is high.

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 explains the purpose and condition, but with no output schema, it does not specify the structure or details of the 'governor throttle recommendations' it returns. For a tool with six parameters and no operation annotations, an agent would benefit from knowing the output shape or any side effects. This is a notable gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by contextualizing them: it explains that the tool uses Kingman's Heavy-Traffic approximation and that recommendations are triggered when utilization exceeds 0.85, which clarifies the role of the rate parameters and the threshold. This goes beyond simple schema descriptions.

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 what the tool does: it evaluates evaluator queue load using a specific mathematical approximation (Kingman's) and returns throttle recommendations based on a utilization threshold. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle different queue or evaluation concerns.

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 a clear condition for use: when utilization exceeds rho >= 0.85. It implies when to call this tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context is sufficient for most agents.

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