alethia_assert_safety

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns a per-action report with block/allow status and that it verifies blocks without performing clicks, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, each providing distinct value: what it does and when to use it. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly states the return format (per-action report with block/allow status). The single parameter is well-documented, and annotations cover the safety profile, making the description complete for this tool.

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?

The schema fully describes the single 'url' parameter, so the description adds little beyond restating that it navigates to a URL. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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 uses specific verbs ('navigate', 'discover', 'verify') and clearly identifies the resource (every destructive/write-high action on a page) and the VITRON-EA1 policy gate. It distinguishes from sibling audit tools by framing this as policy verification rather than accessibility/NIST audits.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use it as a compliance check before releasing an agent-driven workflow against a customer environment.' It also implies it is the automated alternative to manually clicking destructive buttons, providing clear context.

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