blekline_simulate_policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this while adding the crucial detail that content is neither masked nor persisted. This goes beyond the annotation metadata by clarifying the tool's non-mutating, non-logging behavior. It does not describe the exact output format, but for a read-only simulation the safety profile is well covered.

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, tightly worded sentence that delivers the essential purpose and behavior without unnecessary words. Every phrase earns its place: read-only, simulation, no masking, no persistence.

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 the tool's simplicity and the annotations, the description covers the core behavior but leaves gaps. There is no output schema, and the description does not indicate what the simulation returns (e.g., policy decisions, risk scores), which an agent would need to decide whether to invoke the tool. Parameter details for platform and sourceHost are also absent. The tool is still usable, but the description is not fully self-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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions the 'prompt' by name indirectly ('on a prompt'). It does not explain the meaning or purpose of the 'platform' and 'sourceHost' parameters, which are likely important for policy simulation context. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it is a read-only simulation of a redaction policy on a prompt, explicitly noting no masking or persisting occurs. This distinguishes it from siblings like blekline_mask_prompt (which applies masking) and logging tools. The verb 'simulate' is specific and unambiguous.

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 intended use case: dry-run evaluation of policy without side effects. It contrasts with masking/persisting tools, giving context for when to choose simulation over alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusionary guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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