defensetech_vault_resolve_3axis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the return format (intersected allowed_actions, max human_user_status, OR-ed requires_* flags) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or discuss side effects, authentication, or rate limits. The explanation of output is helpful but safety details are missing.

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 long, front-loads the action and inputs, and defines the output concisely. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value. However, it lacks details on valid input values for the tuple fields, error conditions, and the expected structure of the contract object. This gap reduces completeness for a complex tool with nested objects.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description adds context by naming the three tuple fields (CUI tier, export-control status, foreign-person restriction), but does not specify expected values, formats, or enumerations. The 'contract' parameter remains completely opaque. More parameter guidance is needed for correct usage.

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 resolves a (CUI, export-control, foreign-person) tuple against a vault contract and returns the most-restrictive policy. The verb 'resolve' and specific resource 'DefenseTech 3-axis vault contract' make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like defensetech_check_itar_us_person by focusing on policy resolution rather than a specific check.

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 the tool should be used when the most-restrictive policy for a given tuple needs to be computed against a contract. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, which prevents a score of 5.

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