semantic_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the core output behavior: it returns proceed, escalate or block with a trace. It also explicitly states that uncertainty escalates, which is an important safety-relevant trait. It does not discuss permissions, side effects, or rate limits, but the key decision semantics are clear.

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-loaded with purpose and followed by return behavior and escalation policy. There is no wasted text, and the structure moves from what the tool does to what it outputs.

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 high-level purpose, timing, and decision outcomes are covered, which is enough for an agent to understand the tool's role. However, with a nested optional fields object and no output schema, the description should say more about the fields structure and trace format. It is minimally adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters, but it does not. 'Domain message' and 'field contracts' only vaguely gesture at domain, text, and fields, and do not explain the nested fields object or its meaning.

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, 'Interpret', and states the resource: a domain message against the governed glossary and field contracts. It also says this happens before an agent acts, which clarifies the tool's role. It is clear, though 'governed glossary and field contracts' remains somewhat abstract.

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 explicitly states the timing: use it 'before an agent acts'. It also gives a clear behavioral policy, 'Anything uncertain escalates', which helps an agent understand the expected conservative posture. There are no sibling tools, so no alternative routing comparison is needed.

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