aletheia_intercept

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool evaluates and blocks, but does not state what the tool returns when a call is allowed or blocked, whether interception has side effects, how mandate overrides affect behavior, or what failure modes exist. The mention of 'block destructive, out-of-boundary, or compromised actions' is helpful but too abstract for an agent to predict the actual result of calling this tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the tool's role efficiently. It wastes little space, though phrases like 'sub-millisecond' and the signature identifiers are somewhat ornamental rather than essential. Overall, it is concise without being vague.

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 no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the sole source of behavioral and return-value context. It does not describe what the tool returns, how a blocked invocation is represented, when an override is permitted, or how this relates to the sibling mandate tools. For a safety-critical interception tool with nested parameters, this is a significant completeness gap.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented by the schema. The description adds only general context that tool_name and tool_args represent a proposed invocation; it does not enrich the meaning of mandate_override or provide any additional format, constraints, or usage details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a gatekeeper that evaluates proposed tool invocations and blocks unsafe actions before execution. It states the verb ('evaluates'/'block'), the resource ('any proposed tool invocation'), and the 'universal' scope, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like aletheia_safe_bash and aletheia_safe_sql. The internal signature labels 'Signature S3' and 'S2b' add jargon, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Evaluates any proposed tool invocation ... before execution' clearly signals when the tool should be used: as a pre-execution safety check for any tool call. The 'universal' qualifier implies no exclusions. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools or describe when to bypass interception, so alternatives are not directly addressed.

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