check_governance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return values and the 'fast classification' behavior, but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. It adds some behavioral context but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. It lists outputs and a key differentiator (speed) without unnecessary detail.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it states the purpose, lists the return types, and notes the speed advantage. It would benefit from explicit guidance on usage versus alternatives, but overall it covers the essential context for this tool.

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 only parameter 'task' is already described in the schema with the same phrasing ('The task or decision to classify'). The description adds little beyond the schema, but it does imply that the task is used to produce governance outputs. With 100% schema coverage, no additional compensation is needed.

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 classifies a task and determines governance advisors for review, with a specific list of outputs (decision type, advisors, risk level, constitutional constraints). It uses a specific verb ('classify') and resource ('governance advisors'), distinguishing it from siblings like query_intelligence or analyze.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use this tool ('Fast classification without running the full session'), implying it is a quicker alternative to a full governance session. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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