certify_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, successfully detailing the decision categories (Certified, CertifiedWithWarning, EscalateToHuman, Blocked), zone classifications, and constraint margin logic. It explains the 'drift_budget' return value implying budget consumption, though it could more explicitly state that this operation consumes budget or creates a persistent certificate record.

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 docstring structure is logical and front-loaded with purpose, though the Returns section lists 9 output fields that likely duplicate the existing output schema (context signals indicate has_output_schema=true), creating minor redundancy. The example usage is valuable and appropriately placed at the end.

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 high-complexity safety tool, the description provides robust coverage including parameter semantics, return structure, decision logic, and executable examples. Minor gaps remain regarding inter-tool workflow (e.g., whether to call `check_budget` first) and explicit mutation/side-effect statements.

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?

Given the schema has 0% description coverage, the Args section provides comprehensive compensation by documenting all 6 parameters with semantic ranges (e.g., scope '[0, 1], where 0=narrow, 1=global') and illustrative examples (e.g., 'act_123', 'claude_v3'), fully clarifying the dimension scales and identifiers.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Evaluate' and clear resource 'safety of an action', elaborating that it uses the 'QAE safety kernel' to assess proposed actions. It effectively distinguishes from siblings: unlike `check_budget` (resource checking) or `get_certification_history` (retrieval), this performs active multi-dimensional safety evaluation.

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?

While the phrase 'assess whether a proposed action is safe to execute' implies usage prior to action execution, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus `check_budget` (e.g., whether to check budget first) or how it relates to `get_certification_history`. The description lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' or prerequisite guidance.

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