veto_workflow

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

The description discloses key behaviors: gates stop the pipeline on low confidence, returns per-step results and overall verdict. This adds value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by explaining the execution flow. It does not cover side effects but is sufficient given the tool's nature.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the core purpose, gate behavior, and return structure. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (3 parameters, nested steps array, no output schema), the description provides a solid overview of pipeline logic and return values. It misses details like condition and retry, but those are covered in the schema. For selection and invocation, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description restates some schema details (gates, steps) but does not add new semantics or constraints beyond what the schema provides for parameters like mode, steps, or project_dir.

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 'Runs a sequential agent pipeline with optional pass/fail gates between steps,' specifying a distinct action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like veto_code_review or veto_security_scan, which are single-purpose, by focusing on orchestration of multiple steps.

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 use for multi-step pipelines with gating but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It provides clear context for sequential execution but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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