SINT Protocol

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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool denies an action, implying a mutation operation, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the denial is reversible, what happens after denial (e.g., notifications, status changes), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key verb ('Deny') and resource, making it easy to parse and understand immediately. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and target.

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 complexity of a denial operation (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects like permissions, consequences, or response format, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The description alone does not provide enough context for an agent to fully understand the tool's implications.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear descriptions for all parameters (requestId, reason, by). The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or examples. Since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 ('Deny') and the target resource ('a pending escalated action by its request ID'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'sint__approve' (which likely approves instead of denies) and 'sint__pending' (which likely lists pending actions rather than acting on them).

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 implies usage when there is a 'pending escalated action' to deny, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'sint__approve' for approval or other tools for different actions). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the context somewhat implied rather than fully guided.

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