decision_gate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the HALT behavior on FATAL answers, but does not explain what happens when all criteria pass, nor does it define 'FATAL' or the output format. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and every clause earns its place. No redundancy or filler.

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 simple gate with no output schema, the description could be more complete by stating the pass condition and output behavior. It implies all four must be true to proceed, but does not explicitly describe the success return value or the meaning of FATAL. Available structured data is minimal, so the description needs to do more.

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 already describes all four boolean parameters clearly (100% coverage). The description repeats the names but adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema. 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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and names a distinct resource ('Consensus Hardening Protocol R0 gate'), clearly listing the four evaluation criteria (solvable, scoped, valid, worth it). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like decision_adversary by framing it as a gate that halts work.

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 when to use the tool ('on a proposed decision', 'before doing the work') and hints at the consequence of a FATAL result (stop and reframe). It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the timing guidance is clear enough.

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