blekline_evaluate_tool_call

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description repeats this with 'Read-only' without adding new safety information. However, it does add value by disclosing that the policy outcome can be 'allow, mask, or block,' which is useful behavioral context not present in the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key attribute ('Read-only') and immediately follows with the specific action and policy outcome. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers its core purpose and outcome categories. While there is no output schema to define return values, the mention of 'allow, mask, or block' implicitly communicates the possible results, and the safety profile is well-covered by annotations. The only gaps are the unexplained 'platform' parameter and minor details about argument handling, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It explicitly mentions 'tool name and arguments,' which maps to the required toolName and arguments properties, adding meaningful semantics. However, it does not describe the optional 'platform' parameter or elaborate on the structure of the 'arguments' object, leaving some ambiguity.

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 function: 'Read-only evaluation of MCP tool name and arguments against Blekline workspace tool policy (allow, mask, or block).' It specifies the verb (evaluate), the resources (tool name and arguments), and the intended outcome (policy decision). This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like classify_risk or simulate_policy.

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 the tool is used when needing to check a tool call against Blekline policy, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Sibling tools suggest related functions, but the description gives no comparative guidance, so the usage context is only implicitly conveyed.

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