system_one_gate

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the operation is bounded and it intentionally does not execute tests. No contradiction with annotations.

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, each earning its place: the first states the combined purpose Discipline, the second prevents a common misuse. Some jargon like 'System One' and 'bounded' is unexplained, but overall it is compact and front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, nested object evidence, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, this description is under-specified. An agent cannot infer how evidence should be structured, what thresholds like auto_accept or composite_floor do, or what response to expect.

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 carry parameter meaning, but it only adds semantics for diff and claims, and indirectly tests. The critical params request, evidence, review_at, auto_accept, composite_floor, and context remain entirely unexplained.

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-resource pairing: 'Review a diff and verify completion claims' in one request Dropping. It distinguishes itself from a test-runner by explicitly saying it does not execute tests. However, it does not differentiate clearly from system_one_review or system_one_verify beyond the 'together' phrasing.

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 it ('together in one bounded System One request') and states an exclusion ('Does not execute tests'). It does not name alternatives or provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to the sibling tools.

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