CommonSensePass protocol

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds that the output is a canonical playbook, but does not describe its structure, size, or whether it is static, so it adds only moderate behavioral context beyond the 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, front-loaded with the core action, and the usage condition follows immediately. There is no wasted text.

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 simple zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it says what is returned and when to call it. The main missing context is how it relates to overlapping siblings like commonsensepass_check and commonsensepass_rules.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly implies no input is required.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the canonical CommonSensePass worker sanity-gate playbook. The purpose is clear, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like commonsensepass_check or commonsensepass_rules.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: call when a worker needs to decide whether a listed claim type makes sense. It enumerates claim states, which helps, but does not mention when to use alternatives such as commonsensepass_check or commonsensepass_rules.

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