governance_capture_codex_decision

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It reveals one critical behavior: the tool does not write to the canonical ledger (effectively a read-only validation). However, it does not disclose any other behavioral aspects such as return structure, error conditions, or potential side effects beyond the ledger, making the transparency only partial.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and the key constraint. It is concise and free of filler or repeated information.

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?

The tool has two complex nested object parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and a description that only covers a single behavioral aspect. The agent has no context on what constitutes a 'packet' or 'decision' in this governance domain, nor how validation results are returned. Given the large set of sibling governance tools, this description is insufficient for correct invocation and requires significant external knowledge.

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 schema has two required object parameters (packet and decision), both with additionalProperties true and no descriptions. The tool description provides no information about what these parameters mean, how they should be structured, or what content they expect. With 0% schema coverage and no compensation in the description, parameter semantics are entirely absent.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: validate a host decision without writing to the canonical ledger. It uses a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('host decision'), and the 'without writing' clause differentiates it from capture/write operations and other governance tools.

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 a dry-run validation use case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of similar siblings like governance_validate_decision or other governance validation/preparation tools. No alternatives or exclusions are named, leaving usage guidance only implied.

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