gsep_before_tool

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait of blocking destructive actions using a firewall, which is beyond the empty annotations. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., what happens when blocked), error handling, or idempotency, leaving notable gaps.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no fluff, and front-loads the purpose. Every word contributes meaning, making it efficient for quick parsing.

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 schema covering parameters, the description is too brief for a middleware hook with a firewall mechanism. It omits information about the C5 Action Firewall, what constitutes destructive, and how the tool's output or status affects subsequent execution. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for reliable use.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so it does not enhance understanding beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 it is a middleware hook that runs before agent actions to block destructive ones using a firewall. It's specific about the verb (run) and resource (agent actions), and distinguishes from siblings like gsep_after_tool by focusing on pre-execution. However, it could be slightly more precise about its role as a security interceptor.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gsep_scan_input or gsep_before_llm. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage.

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