veto_new_feature

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

The description reveals behavioral traits beyond annotations: it is a composite pipeline that sequences operations, stops early on RED, and returns multiple outputs. This adds context not captured by readOnlyHint or destructiveHint.

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?

Three sentences with high information density. Each sentence serves a purpose: pipeline overview, collapsing multiple calls, early stop and outputs. No redundant words.

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 explains inputs and outputs, and the pipeline flow. Output schema is absent, but the description compensates by listing return components. Slightly lacking in detail on output structure, but sufficient for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions context, description, project_dir, and agent_responses in passing. Baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: a pipeline combining council governance, execution plan, and task DAG. It specifies the output (verdict, plan, task list) and a stopping condition (RED verdict). This differentiates it from sibling tools like veto_council_debate or veto_agent_plan.

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 (instead of three separate tool calls) and warns about early stoppage on RED verdict. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases where the pipeline is inappropriate or list alternatives beyond the implied individual tools.

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