gov_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only, runs no gates, changes no files, and never spawns tools. This gives an agent accurate expectations about side effects and safety.

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 yet information-dense. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines behavior and output, the second gives use cases, and the third names the sibling alternative and reinforces non-mutation. Key constraints are 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?

The description is complete for a read-only inspection tool. It covers purpose, output shape, usage timing, alternatives, and side-effect guarantees. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be repeated, and the sibling context makes the tool's role in the workflow clear.

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 schema already documents both parameters (manifest path and optional policy path). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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: a read-only governance assessment of a research artifact, returned as JSON. It enumerates the exact contents (decision state, missing gates, pass/fail per gate, policy reference check) and clearly distinguishes itself from gov_check by emphasizing it does not run gates.

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 when-to-use guidance: inspect an artifact before attaching evidence or understand why a previous check did not release. It also names the alternative (gov_check) and states the preference for fresh gate execution, plus exclusions (never mutates, never spawns tools).

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