governance_evaluate_gate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee ('never grants user approval'), but omits other traits like side effects, permissions, or state changes. The single disclosed trait is useful but incomplete for a governance tool.

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 brief and front-loaded, with two sentences that each add value. No fluff or repetition, though it could pack more useful info into the same space.

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?

Although an output schema exists (reducing need to explain return values), the description lacks parameter semantics and usage context. For a governance tool with minimal complexity, this basic info is insufficient to select and invoke correctly.

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 compensate. It provides no explanation of the 'decisions' array or 'claim_type' parameter, leaving the agent without semantic understanding beyond variable names.

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 evaluates deterministic claim gates, with a specific verb and resource. The caveat 'never grants user approval' distinguishes it from approval-granting tools, though the term 'claim gates' is not fully defined.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tool references. The only guidance is a negative constraint ('never grants user approval'), which tells when not to use it but not when to use it.

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