enforced_tool_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: policy check, optional forwarding, signing of request and response, and an alternative signing-only mode. Lacks details on failure modes, auth needs, or rate limits, but covers the core workflow adequately.

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?

Description is short and to the point, but the initial sentence is dense and somewhat run-on. The structured Args list aids readability. Could be slightly more organized (e.g., bullet points) but overall efficient.

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 (policy enforcement, optional forwarding, signing), the description covers the process but omits important aspects: what the output schema contains (since it exists but not described), error scenarios, prerequisites, and what happens on policy failure. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 must compensate. The 'Args' section explains each parameter (tool_name, agent_id, arguments, tool_endpoint) clearly, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. Could be more detailed about format or constraints, but sufficient for understanding usage.

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?

Clearly states the tool's purpose: a strong-enforcement path that performs policy-check, optionally forwards to tool_endpoint, and signs the request+response as a bilateral receipt. Distinguishes from sibling tools like check_policy, sign_action, complete_action by specifying the combined workflow.

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?

Provides minimal guidance: describes a 'strong-enforcement path' and notes an alternative where only approval is signed, requiring complete_action. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. specific siblings, nor does it give when-not-to-use advice.

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