apply_guardrails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks policies and returns a decision, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if it has side effects. The term 'prüft' suggests checking, but safety implications are not clarified.

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 well-structured with sections for parameters and return values, and each sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor redundancy in listing checks after the first sentence, but overall concise.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains return values (allowed, decision, reason, policy_checked) and context fields. For a guardrail tool with 2 parameters, this is sufficient.

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 compensates well by detailing the 'action' parameter with examples and explaining the 'context' object fields (amount_usd, domain, api_calls_this_minute, custom_policies). This adds significant meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks if an agent action is allowed according to configurable policies, listing specific checks (spend limits, allowed domains, blocked actions, actions needing human approval, API rate limits). This distinguishes it from siblings like check_compliance, check_pii, emergency_stop, etc.

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 implies usage for any action requiring policy verification but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No contrast with sibling tools is provided.

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