vorion_gate_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses return fields (allowed, current tier, required tier, reason) and frames the tool as a pre-flight check, implying no side effects. But it does not discuss error conditions, permissions, or whether any state is modified, leaving gaps.

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: first states purpose, second covers return values and usage. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core question.

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?

For a simple authorization check with fully documented schemas, the description provides essential context: purpose, return values, and usage scenario. It lacks error handling details but is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of requiredTier by mentioning 'required tier' but adds no additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 checks if an AI agent is allowed to perform a specific action based on trust tier. It uses a specific verb ('Check'), names the resource ('specific action'), and differentiates from sibling vorion_check_trust by focusing on action-level authorization with required tier comparison.

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 says 'Use this as a pre-flight check before executing sensitive operations', providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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