guard_action

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it returns proceed true/false, a 'blocked' decision requires human approval via CLI, the agent cannot self-approve, and every decision is recorded in a tamper-evident ledger. Minor omissions include potential error scenarios or side effects beyond logging.

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 concise and well-structured: a lead sentence summarizing purpose, then return format, workflow details, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (pre-check with approval workflow), the description covers the core flow and return structure. It lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid action format) but the output schema likely covers return fields. The description is sufficient for correct tool invocation.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'action' is defined as the exact command/SQL/tool call to check, and 'approval_code' as the one-time code from human CLI approval. This compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 explicitly states 'Check an action BEFORE you run it' and details the return value and workflow, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like assess_action (which likely evaluates risk) and recent_decisions (which lists decisions).

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 specifies when to use the tool ('before you run it') and provides a step-by-step workflow for handling blocked actions and approval codes. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or mention when not to use it.

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