Pre-flight a chokepoint

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses key behaviors: missing/stale/failed evidence reads as UNKNOWN and produces HOLD, and the gate never clears what it cannot see. This adds meaningful context about how evidence is evaluated and verdicts are derived.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second lists verdicts with a useful clarification, and the third explains the edge-case behavior. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 single parameter and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral details: gates checked, verdicts, and evidence handling. It fully explains the tool's decision logic without needing to document return values.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'rank' parameter, and the schema already states 'Chokepoint rank from chokepoint_rank'. The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 evidence gates before acting, listing specific gates (EDR silence, change freeze, blast radius) and producing concrete verdicts. This distinguishes it from siblings like chokepoint_ingest or chokepoint_plan.

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 when to use this tool: before acting, as a gating step. Verdicts like REQUIRES_STAGING and HOLD_PARTIAL clarify subsequent actions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state exclusions.

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