triage_surface_entry_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that this is a human approval gate with approve/reject outcomes that gate later scanning, which is valuable. It does not state whether rejections are reversible, what approve_all does to all pending items at once, or whether the action is audited – gaps that matter for a mutation-style gate.

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 short lines with the checkpoint identity front-loaded and the approve/reject capability stated immediately. Nothing is padded, though the garbled character encoding makes the text harder to parse than the length warrants.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the purpose is legible. But for a three-parameter gating tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves too much unspecified: which action to use, what program_id/endpoint_id control, and what happens to pending items after a bulk approval.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. The APPROVE/REJECT wording loosely maps to the action enum values, but program_id, endpoint_id, and the distinction between approve_all and approve_id are never mentioned. The enum defaults (e.g. default-program vs. an empty string, and a hard-coded PROG-DVC-QUANGNINH-2026 default) are unexplained and potentially confusing.

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 names a specific role ('Human Checkpoint 2'), a specific verb set (view/approve/reject), and a specific resource ('các điểm chạm khả nghi' – suspicious entry points / surface). It also positions the tool in the workflow ('trước khi chạy quét sâu' – before the deep scan), which distinguishes it from the sibling run_surface_recon. The mojibake encoding degrades readability but the intent remains recoverable.

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?

Usage is implied through the 'before running a deep scan' framing, which tells the agent this gate must precede deeper scanning. However, no sibling tool is named as an alternative, and the description does not say what to do if there are no pending entry points or which action to pick for each situation.

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