gsep_scan_actions

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

With no annotations, the description reveals key behavior: it permanently blocks dangerous actions and classifies them into categories (safe/caution/destructive/critical). However, it does not clarify whether blocking is automatic or if the tool returns results for agent decision. The permanent blocking disclosure is valuable.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous information. Every sentence provides essential detail about scanning, classification, and blocking.

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 no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and side effects (permanent blocking). However, it lacks details on the return format or how results are communicated, leaving some ambiguity.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, particularly for the 'genome_id' parameter which is not mentioned. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 scans LLM responses for dangerous/destructive actions using C5 Action Firewall, classifies them, and permanently blocks specific actions. It provides specific examples of blocked actions (rm -rf, DROP DATABASE) and distinguishes from sibling tools like gsep_scan_input or gsep_scan_output by focusing on actions in responses.

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 implies usage for scanning actions in LLM responses but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., scanning input or output). No when-not or alternative tool guidance is provided.

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