Guardrail

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: 'deterministic' and the emphatic 'never executes the proposed action,' which reinforces the safety profile. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 with no filler. The most important attributes are front-loaded: deterministic, read-only, preflight check. The second sentence earns its place by emphasizing that the action is never executed.

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 two-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description covers the core safety behavior. However, with no output schema, the description does not describe what the risk assessment returns, and the optional 'content' parameter remains unexplained, leaving the tool somewhat incomplete for an agent.

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%, so the description must compensate for underdocumented parameters. The description indirectly identifies 'action' as the proposed action being checked, but 'content' is completely unexplained. This leaves a significant parameter-meaning gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it runs a deterministic, read-only preflight check on a proposed action. This clearly conveys what the tool does and directly distinguishes it from action-taking tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling get_guardrail_capabilities.

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?

The phrase 'preflight check' implies the tool should be used before executing an action to assess risk, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. It relies on inference rather than stating usage conditions.

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

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only the 'deterministic preflight checker' framing, which slightly expands context but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as response format or potential limitations. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's function. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool, the description is nearly complete. It could have explicitly mentioned the response shape or how this relates to assess_action_risk, but those are minor gaps given the tool's low complexity and rich annotations.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers any parameter concerns. Baseline 4 applies; the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 'Returns the scope and safety boundary' of the preflight checker, identifying it as a capability/metadata endpoint. It does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling assess_action_risk, but the described resource is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus assess_action_risk or any other alternative. The description implies it is a preflight/introspection tool, but it does not state a specific condition such as 'call this first' or 'use this instead of assess_action_risk when...'.

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