commonsensepass_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and 'verdict-only' is a genuinely useful disclosure about return shape (a verdict without supporting evidence). However it says nothing about read-only vs. mutating behavior, side effects, permissions, or what happens when the gate fails.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the verb leads. It is slightly dense with domain jargon ('verdict-only', 'sanity gate') that could cost the agent a beat.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not describe the verdict format, failure behavior, or how the nested context/evidence packet is consumed. For a gate tool with nested-object params and no structured behavioral coverage, the description is too thin.

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 100%, so the schema already documents claim, context, and evidence thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond repeating the claim enum values, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('CommonSensePass sanity gate') and enumerates the exact claims it validates, so its role is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely-named siblings commonsensepass_rules and commonsensepass_protocol, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives a clear timing cue ('before a worker claims healthy, quiet, no_work, pass, done, merge_ready, duplicate_wake, or route'), which tells the agent exactly when to invoke it. What it lacks is any exclusions or pointers to the sibling rules/protocol tools for the cases this gate does not cover.

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