check_design_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It states that the tool 'evaluates' and 'returns' results, strongly implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm that no mutation occurs, nor does it describe any prerequisites, error behavior, or side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Evaluate' and immediately specifies the resource and context. It wastes no words and is easy to parse.

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 has a complex nested schema and no output schema, so the description is the only source for return information. It states that violations and export permission are returned, which is useful but incomplete: the agent does not learn the structure of violations or the exact shape of the export permission flag. Given the complexity, additional context about the output or behavior would make it more complete.

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 100% (both 'document' and 'policy' have descriptions). The tool description adds value by enumerating the policy categories ('banned terms, required terms, approval, and workspace capability restrictions'), which helps an agent understand the policy structure, but it does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema's 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 identifies the tool's function: evaluating a design document against a configurable policy covering banned terms, required terms, approval, and capability restrictions. It also states the output (violations and export permission), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_design_document or get_constraints.

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 a clear use case (checking a document before export or as part of policy compliance), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusion conditions are given, so the context is partially clear but not fully explicit.

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