governance_prepare_scope_governor_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'binds' a decision, implying a write operation, but does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or failure behavior. This is a significant gap.

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, direct sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise.

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 the tool has three complex object parameters with nested properties and no schema descriptions, this one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not explain the full process, the relationships between parameters, or the context of the receipt. The output schema covers return values, but the overall tool usage remains unclear.

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 description hints that 'governor_decision' maps to the scope decision and 'governed_packets' to task hashes, but it does not explain the role of 'governor_packet' or the structure of these objects. With 0% schema description coverage, this is insufficient for understanding all three required parameters.

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 action: 'Bind a validated passing scope decision to exact governed task hashes.' It uses a specific verb and identifies the resource, which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other governance operations. However, it does not explicitly mention the 'receipt' concept from the tool name, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like governance_prepare_codex_dispatch. The phrase 'validated passing' implies a prerequisite, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative tools mentioned.

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