suggest_improvements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions analysis and suggestions but doesn't describe what the analysis entails, how suggestions are generated, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any performance/rate limit considerations. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that analyzes security policies.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 2 parameters, though it could be more structured with separate purpose and usage sections.

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 security analysis tool with 2 parameters (one complex nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what security issues are analyzed, what format improvements are suggested in, or how the optional 'icp' enhances analysis. More context is needed given the complexity.

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 50% (only 'icp' has a description), so the description should compensate but doesn't. It mentions 'policy' analysis but doesn't explain what 'policy_yaml' should contain or what 'icp' represents beyond the schema's 'Optional ICP for enhanced analysis'. The description adds minimal value 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's purpose with specific verbs ('analyze', 'suggest') and resource ('policy for security issues'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'validate_policy' or 'test_policy', which likely have overlapping security analysis functions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_policy' or 'test_policy'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this analysis is preferred over other policy-related tools.

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