pre_action_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It explicitly discloses non-behaviors: 'does not authenticate, authorize, enforce, persist state, or perform the action.' This is meaningful, non-obvious context that prevents an agent from assuming side effects.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: the main routing behavior is front-loaded, the resubmission workflow follows, and the readiness boundary closes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description names the four possible routes, covers input families, and clarifies non-effects, which is strong for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain the exact decision criteria that map policy checks and evidence to a specific route, but it points to get_schema for the full nested contract.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by identifying the semantically important inputs—'caller-supplied claim evidence, risk tier, policy checks, and an optional external approval reference'—and by explaining the resubmission semantics around run_id.

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 a specific verb ('Route') and names both the object ('a caller-controlled action') and the four possible outcomes: continue, request_evidence, require_approval, or stop. It also distinguishes itself as a readiness-only decision router, separating it from sibling validation/analysis tools.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: it is a readiness check that does not enforce or persist, and it explicitly instructs callers to 'Resubmit the same run_id after adding evidence or approval.' It does not name alternative tools explicitly, so some inference about when to choose this over siblings remains.

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