List available policy packs with industry and region tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | Filter by region (e.g. us, eu, uk, global) | |
| industry | No | Filter by industry (e.g. finance, healthcare, defense, aerospace, energy, technology) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool lists available policy packs, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly note the absence of side effects, authentication requirements, or response details. The description is not misleading, but it leaves some behavioral aspects implicit.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no wasted content.
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 list operation with only two optional filters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly communicates that the tool returns available policy packs with tags, aligning with the sibling tools' context without needing extensive elaboration.
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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (region and industry), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.
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's action ('List available policy packs') and its scope (with industry and region tags). The verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes this from sibling tools like check_code or generate_proof, which serve entirely different purposes.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any specific use cases, prerequisites, or situations where another sibling tool might be more appropriate. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes: check_code returns violations, generate_proof creates a signed bundle, get_directives retrieves rules, get_proof fetches a bundle, and list_packs enumerates packs. The only potential ambiguity is between check_code and generate_proof, both scan code against policies, but they produce different outputs (raw violations vs. proof bundle), making them distinguishable.
All five tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_code, generate_proof, get_directives, get_proof, list_packs). The verbs are action-oriented and the nouns clearly indicate the resource or output, with no mixed conventions or vague naming.
Five tools is well-scoped for a code governance server. Each tool addresses a distinct aspect: checking, proof generation, policy retrieval, proof retrieval, and pack listing. This covers the core workflows without unnecessary redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the primary governance operations: checking code, generating and retrieving proofs, and accessing policy directives and pack listings. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct method to view a single policy pack's full details or manage packs, but the core enforcement and proof lifecycle is complete.
