aegis

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

Strong disclosure given zero annotations: explicitly states changes apply 'immediately' and only to 'subsequent evaluations' (implying no retroactivity). Missing validation behavior and error outcomes, but covers critical runtime characteristics that annotations would typically provide.

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?

Well-structured with purpose front-loaded, behavioral details second, and parameter documentation last. Slightly inefficient 'Args:' section repeats information that could be inferred, but overall concise with no filler sentences.

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?

Appropriate for a single-parameter mutation tool with output schema present. Covers immediacy and scope of effect which are critical for governance operations. Could benefit from mentioning YAML validation behavior or rollback implications given the high-stakes domain, but sufficient for selection.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adequately compensates by specifying the yaml_content parameter contains 'policy rules' in 'YAML string' format. Could enhance with validation constraints or example structure, but successfully conveys semantic meaning absent from schema.

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?

Excellent specificity: 'Hot-reload' is a precise verb, 'governance policy' identifies the resource, and the immediacy clause distinguishes it from sibling get_policy (which presumably only reads). Clear scope declaration.

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?

Implies usage through 'hot-reload' and 'takes effect immediately', indicating this is for live policy updates. However, lacks explicit contrast with get_policy or guidance on when to update vs use existing policy. No mention of prerequisites or validation requirements.

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