generate_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'enterprise-grade' entails. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the transformation purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or output format, which would be helpful given the complexity of policy generation.

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%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides about 'nl_requirements' or 'icp'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose with specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('natural language guardrails into enterprise-grade Cerbos YAML policies'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on generation rather than listing, suggesting, testing, or validating policies.

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 converting natural language to YAML policies, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'suggest_improvements' or 'test_policy'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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