execution_eligibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an authorization decision but does not dispatch the model, which is critical behavioral information. However, it doesn't disclose details about authorization decision types, potential side effects (read-only vs mutation), or what happens on failure, which are gaps given the lack of annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by necessary clarifications about dispatch enforcement. The second paragraph is slightly verbose but adds critical context. Overall, it is structured well with minimal waste.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters and an output schema, but no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description provides high-level context (authorization decision, enforcement boundary) but lacks detailed parameter semantics and behavioral specifics like return value structure, error handling, or side effects. Given the complexity and missing schema descriptions, the description is incomplete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the six parameters (worker_key, cost_ceiling, required_capabilities, etc.). The description only mentions 'runtime capabilities/cost' at a high level. With zero schema descriptions, this is a significant gap; the description could have outlined the meaning of cost_ceiling or required_capabilities.

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 the worker's current runtime capabilities/cost before dispatch or a protected action, distinguishing it as an authorization check rather than a dispatch mechanism. It mentions 'MangoMe' and 'orchestrator' which could be more explicit but overall the purpose is clear and specific.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool (before dispatch or protected actions like DEPLOY) and explicitly states that the external orchestrator must enforce negative decisions, implying when not to rely on this tool for enforcement. It doesn't name specific sibling alternatives but the context is sufficient.

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