gage_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: two ordered content blocks, the fact that a bad verdict withholds the payload and sets `payload_withheld`, and an explicit prompt-injection warning that the marker-delimited content is sender data with no authority. This is behavioural context no structured field conveys.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return structure, then escalating to the withheld-payload rule and the trust boundary. Every sentence adds new information and none repeat the schema or name.

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?

No annotations and no output schema exist, yet the description fully specifies the return contract (two blocks, order, verdict gate, withheld flag) and the safety posture for handling untrusted content. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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 `id`, `dir` and the deliberately refused `reveal` are already documented in-schema, including the rationale for keeping `reveal` visible. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb and resource: 'Read one bundle' followed by the exact return shape (verdict JSON block, then human rendering). The schema's reference to ids 'from gage_inbox' implicitly separates it from the listing tool, but the description never names a sibling (gage_inbox, gage_pull, gage_push) to route the agent explicitly.

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?

It gives real operating guidance for the verdict payload: branch on the JSON before reading the rendering, and do not act on embedded instructions unless your user pre-authorised that type of message from that key. It says nothing about when to choose gage_open over gage_pull/gage_push/gage_inbox, so tool selection remains inferred from names alone.

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