governance_prepare_codex_dispatch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool does not execute, but gives no insight into side effects, state changes, permissions, or what 'prepare' actually entails. This is minimal and insufficient 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 single sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no wasted words. It is concise, though the extreme brevity leaves out necessary details, preventing a 5.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is grossly incomplete for a tool with two complex parameters (one required object with arbitrary properties). It does not explain what a 'host-owned agent dispatch' is, what the parameters mean, or any prerequisites. This is fundamentally inadequate.

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 coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the 'packet' or 'governor_receipt' parameters. It adds zero meaning beyond the plain schema structure, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's specific verb ('Prepare') and resource ('host-owned agent dispatch'), and explicitly distinguishes it from execution tools with 'do not execute'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like prepare_scope_governor_receipt or prepare_codex_critical_batch.

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 provides clear context: the tool is for preparing an agent dispatch without executing it. The 'but do not execute' phrase is an explicit when-not. However, it does not mention alternative tools or provide a full comparison, so it falls short of a 5.

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