gov_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and meets it well. It discloses fail-closed behavior ('missing tool, crash or timeout records not_run and blocks'), the side effect of writing the result back, and the operational meaning of exit_code 2 as do-not-publish. This gives the agent a clear picture of safety and side effects.

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 four dense sentences with no filler: purpose and verdicts come first, then usage constraints, then return payload and error handling. Every sentence adds operational value, and critical information is front-loaded.

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?

For a gate-checking tool with an output schema, the description covers return fields (decision, exit_code, missing, gates, policy_ref_ok), failure semantics, prerequisites, and the do-not-publish signal. Combined with the fully described schema and output schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters including defaults and when kind override should be used. The description reinforces the manifest and evidence-sequencing context but does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run the full holdout gate chain on a research artifact' and lists the exact verdict values (release / review_needed / block). Its lifecycle framing ('final step before publishing') distinguishes it from the related gov_init and gov_attach tools, so an agent can identify what it does without opening the schema.

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 explicit usage timing ('Use as the final step before publishing'), prerequisite ordering ('after gov_init created the project and gov_attach recorded the evidence'), and a clear don't-call condition ('Do NOT call it before evidence is attached'). It does not explicitly name gov_report as the alternative for reporting, so it stops just short of fully contrasting all siblings.

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