evaluate_action_gate

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

The description discloses that the computation is deterministic and based on retained versioned inputs, giving some insight into its state-dependency. However, it does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or data requirements beyond those inputs, and with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 a single compact sentence that conveys the core function without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action verb and is appropriately sized.

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?

While the output schema exists, the description lacks workflow context (e.g., prerequisite steps) and does not explain terminology like 'retained versioned inputs' or how the parameters map to these inputs. This makes it incomplete for a tool in a multi-step action gate workflow.

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?

The description makes no reference to request_id or caller_token, and since the schema has 0% coverage, the agent must rely on the parameter names alone. This leaves interpretation to guesswork.

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 'Compute' and specifies the output values 'ALLOW, BLOCK, or REQUIRE_APPROVAL', which distinguishes it from siblings like submit_action_request or get_action_state. However, it does not clarify what 'retained versioned inputs' refers to, limiting full precision.

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?

No use-case context is provided; there is no mention of when this should be called relative to other tools, or any alternatives. The description only states what it computes, not when to invoke it.

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