govern

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions a pipeline but doesn't disclose side effects, required permissions, or what happens after the circuit (e.g., does it create a record?). This is insufficient for a governance 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?

Single sentence is concise but vague. Every word is not earning its place since the content is abstract. Adequate length but poor informativeness.

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?

With three parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description should provide more context (e.g., return format, prerequisites). It does not address these gaps, leaving the agent uncertain about invocation and results.

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 only 33% (target has a description). The description adds no additional meaning to parameters; vote and rationale remain underdocumented. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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?

Description states it runs a 'governance circuit' with three stages (detect, simulate, deliberate), giving a vague sense of purpose but lacks a specific resource or outcome. It's not a tautology but remains abstract and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like guardian_* or propose_experiment.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many governance-related siblings (e.g., guardian_alerts, guardian_audit), the absence of usage context makes selection difficult.

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