ewp_may_act

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral nuance: permission is not inferred from WarrantView alone, which is useful. But it doesn't mention read-only status, side effects, error behavior, or return format. The single behavioral note adds value but leaves significant gaps.

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 two sentences with no filler, and the key constraint about not inferring from WarrantView is stated early. It is appropriately short for a simple gate, though the opening phrase 'Separate action gate' is cryptic and could be clearer.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how the optional parameters affect behavior, or what scenario warrants its use beyond the WarrantView distinction. An agent would have difficulty calling it correctly without additional context.

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 by explaining parameter purpose. It only references 'action' and 'WarrantView' (likely the warrant parameter), but says nothing about risk_policy, evaluated_at, or proposition_id. It adds minimal meaning beyond the required property list, failing to clarify how the parameters interact.

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 calls the tool a 'Separate action gate' and mentions an action object, which hints at a permission check, but it never states a clear verb or resource. It distinguishes itself from WarrantView by saying it won't infer permission from that alone, but the core function (e.g., 'check whether an action is permitted') is implied rather than explicit.

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?

It provides some usage context by stating it requires an action object and will not infer permission from WarrantView alone, implying this tool is for action-level checks rather than just viewing warrants. However, it doesn't name sibling alternatives or give explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer the decision boundary.

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