cmmn-evaluate_sentry

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

The description reveals that the tool updates the satisfied status (a side effect) and returns detailed results. However, with no annotations, it lacks depth on permissions, reversibility, or consequences. It is minimally transparent but not comprehensive.

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?

Two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words, though slightly more structure (e.g., listing what the tool does and what it returns) could help. Still, it's concise and clear.

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 and no annotations, the description does enough to explain inputs and general behavior, but it leaves out details about the return format or error conditions. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 100% and the description adds useful context beyond field names: e.g., 'Optional evaluation context (triggered_event, source_item, etc.)' clarifies the purpose of the 'context' parameter. This adds meaningful value.

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 sentry conditions and updates status, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cmmn-check_sentry_condition or cmmn-mark_sentry_satisfied, which could lead to confusion.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, when not to use it, or references to related tools. An agent has no way to decide if this is the appropriate tool for a given scenario.

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