subsumption_grid

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

The description explains that the tool loads requirements from a catalog and returns a grid, implying a read-only operation. However, with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or discuss any side effects, permissions, or limitations.

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 three sentences, each adding value: input-output declaration, mechanism, and usage guidance. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the input semantics, output nature (grid template with requirements/proof burdens), and a critical usage hint. It sufficiently equips an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 only parameter 'claim_keys' is described as 'claim/defense/crime keys (or names)', adding meaning beyond the schema (which has no descriptions). It also references list_claims for key lookup, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 function: given claim/defense/crime keys, it returns a subsumption grid template with requirements and proof burdens. It uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('grid template'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing list_claims for key retrieval.

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 advises to call list_claims if keys are unknown, providing clear guidance on when to use an alternative. However, it does not cover other usage scenarios or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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