feat(R05): tool capability registry, unified policy gateway, MCP lifecycle manager

EPIC R05 (Team Hoa) - one security/approval path for every tool call.

R05-T01 domain/tools/{tool_descriptor,tool_registry}.py
  ToolCapability (READ/WRITE/EXECUTE/NETWORK, composable) + ToolDescriptor +
  ToolRegistry, replacing three independently-maintained gating lists
  (core/tools.py::WRITE_TOOLS, code_agent.py's WRITE_TOOLS|MS365_WRITE_TOOLS,
  chat_agent.py's literal ("run_command","install_package") tuple) with one
  capability lookup.

R05-T02 infrastructure/filesystem/{file_tools,command_tools,fetch_tools,tool_context}.py
  core/tools.py's execute_tool if/elif chain split into per-concern modules.
  core/tools.py is now a strangler-fig shim: re-exports ToolContext/ToolError,
  dispatches through a {name: handler} dict built from the split modules.
  core/tools.py: 566 -> 291 lines.

R05-T03 application/conversations/tool_policy_gateway.py
  ToolPolicyGateway.allow(name, gate, payload) - capability-driven ALLOW vs
  ask-the-gate decision. Wired into both chat_agent.py::run_cowork and
  code_agent.py::run_code, replacing their separate hand-rolled checks.
  Verified equivalent to the old hardcoded sets by test.

R05-T04 (behavior change, not just refactor)
  MCP/connector tools (core/mcp_client.py, core/ext_connectors.py) reached
  chat_agent.py via extra_executor(name, args) with NO permission check at
  all. They are now tagged with a conservative default capability
  (WRITE|EXECUTE|NETWORK - no MCP tool self-declares risk) and routed through
  the SAME ToolPolicyGateway as built-ins. When "confirm before running
  commands" is on, MCP/connector calls now prompt like run_command already
  did - a real gap closed, and a user-visible change worth calling out.

R05-T05 infrastructure/mcp/mcp_source_manager.py
  McpToolSourceManager extracts the connection cache/lock/start-or-skip
  lifecycle out of state.py::AppContext (_mcp_connections/_conn_lock) into a
  standalone, directly-testable class. AppContext.build_mcp_tools and
  _ms365_builtin_connection now call ensure()/stop(); _ext_connections
  (unified Connectors) is out of scope for this task and keeps its own lock.

New tests: tests/unit/test_tool_registry_and_policy.py,
test_code_agent_tool_policy.py, test_cowork_extra_tool_policy.py,
test_mcp_source_manager.py (26 new tests).

Suite: 254 passed, 4 pre-existing failures unrelated to R05 (2 EPIC R02
config-security, 2 environment-dependent routing tests - see checklist).
check_imports: PASS. All new files < 400 LOC.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

application/conversations/__init__.py

@@ -1,8 +1,10 @@
-"""Conversation use case: the lifecycle of one agent turn (EPIC R04)."""
+"""Conversation use case: the lifecycle of one agent turn (EPIC R04) and the
+tool approval policy every turn's tool calls go through (EPIC R05)."""
 
 from .conversation_application_service import (
     ConversationApplicationService,
     TurnResult,
 )
+from .tool_policy_gateway import ConfirmGate, ToolPolicyGateway
 
-__all__ = ["ConversationApplicationService", "TurnResult"]
+__all__ = ["ConversationApplicationService", "TurnResult", "ToolPolicyGateway", "ConfirmGate"]

application/conversations/tool_policy_gateway.py

@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+"""ToolPolicyGateway - one confirm/deny decision path for every tool call
+(R05-T03).
+
+Today "does this tool call need the user's OK first" is answered by a
+different hand-written check per engine:
+
+* ``core/chat_agent.py::run_cowork`` — ``name in ("run_command",
+  "install_package")``, a literal tuple.
+* ``core/code_agent.py::run_code`` — ``name in (WRITE_TOOLS | MS365_WRITE_TOOLS)``,
+  a set built from two other hand-maintained sets.
+* MCP/connector tools (``core/mcp_client.py``, ``core/ext_connectors.py``) —
+  no check at all; ``chat_agent.py`` calls ``extra_executor(name, args)``
+  directly.
+
+Three answers to the same question, and the third one is a real gap: an MCP
+tool that deletes files or calls an external API today runs with zero
+confirmation even when the user turned "confirm before running commands" on.
+
+This gateway answers the question from data (:class:`~domain.tools.tool_descriptor.ToolCapability`
+via a :class:`~domain.tools.tool_registry.ToolRegistry`) instead of a literal
+name list, so registering a tool with the right capability is what gates it -
+nothing to remember at each new call site. R05-T04 is what actually registers
+MCP/connector tools with a capability; this module only needs the mechanism
+to exist.
+
+Pure Python: no Qt, no direct dialog. The actual approval prompt stays exactly
+what it is today - a ``gate`` object with a ``.request(payload) -> bool``
+method, supplied by the presentation layer (Settings' "confirm before running
+commands" wires it up, or None for auto-run) - this module only decides
+WHEN to ask it, never how to render the question.
+"""
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+from typing import Any, Dict, Optional, Protocol
+
+from cowork_local.domain.tools import ToolCapability, ToolRegistry
+
+
+class ConfirmGate(Protocol):
+    """Shape of the existing ``PermissionGate`` both engines already use."""
+
+    def request(self, payload: Dict[str, Any]) -> bool: ...
+
+
+class ToolPolicyGateway:
+    """Decides whether a tool call needs approval, for ONE calling surface.
+
+    ``gated_capabilities`` is what makes this per-surface: Cowork only ever
+    asked about ``run_command``/``install_package`` (capability ``EXECUTE``),
+    while the Code tab additionally confirms plain file writes (capability
+    ``WRITE``). Passing the wrong set here would silently change which tools
+    prompt for approval - see the callers in ``core/chat_agent.py`` and
+    ``core/code_agent.py`` for the exact sets that preserve today's behavior.
+    """
+
+    def __init__(self, registry: ToolRegistry, gated_capabilities: ToolCapability) -> None:
+        self._registry = registry
+        self._gated_capabilities = gated_capabilities
+
+    def requires_confirmation(self, name: str) -> bool:
+        """True when ``name``'s declared capabilities overlap this surface's
+        gated set. An unregistered tool never requires confirmation through
+        this path - callers that must fail safe on unknown tools check
+        ``name in registry`` themselves (see R05-T04's MCP wrapping, which
+        registers every tool it exposes before any call can reach here)."""
+        return bool(self._registry.capabilities_for(name) & self._gated_capabilities)
+
+    def allow(self, name: str, gate: Optional[ConfirmGate], payload: Dict[str, Any]) -> bool:
+        """True when the call may proceed.
+
+        ``gate is None`` preserves each engine's existing "no gate wired -
+        auto-run" behavior; a tool outside ``gated_capabilities`` is never
+        asked about, matching read-only tools "never confirm" today.
+        ``payload`` is whatever ``gate.request(...)`` already expects at that
+        call site (the two engines use slightly different dict shapes) - this
+        gateway only decides WHETHER to call it, never reshapes the payload.
+        """
+        if gate is None or not self.requires_confirmation(name):
+            return True
+        return bool(gate.request(payload))
+
+
+__all__ = ["ToolPolicyGateway", "ConfirmGate"]