run_audit_gates

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'deterministic' but omits side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error handling. No mention of whether it modifies state or requires specific access.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks critical details. Brevity without completeness is not effective. The structure is adequate but could be improved by front-loading key information.

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 complexity of running multiple audit gates with nested object parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, required context, or how the gates are combined.

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 0%, yet the description adds no information about the parameters 'correction_items' or 'data_governance_state'. The list of gate types does not clarify the structure or expected inputs. Essential semantics are missing.

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 verb 'run' combined with 'deterministic audit gates' and the explicit list of gate types (schema/citation/source/claim/redline/governance) provides a clear purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that perform individual checks or similar multi-gate runs.

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 on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like check_claim_support or run_tw_corrections_analysis. The description does not specify prerequisites, context, or alternative tools.

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