arai_check_action

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses no execution, no audit log, returns matched rules with severity and source, same shape as arai_recent_decisions. Could add more on side effects but sufficient for a probe-only 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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and key behavior, second gives usage guidance and return shape. Every word earns its place, no redundancy.

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?

For a 3-param tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, input examples, and return format. Sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage. Description adds value by explaining the shape of tool_input for different tools (Bash, Edit/Write) and describing the return shape, going beyond schema.

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 uses specific verb 'Probe' and resource 'guardrail matching', clearly distinguishing from siblings: arai_add_guard adds, arai_list_guards lists, arai_recent_decisions returns actual firings.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use BEFORE taking an action you think might be regulated to avoid a deny-and-retry loop' and clarifies it doesn't execute or write audit log, implying when not to use. Lacks explicit naming of alternatives but context is clear.

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