test_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Run cerbos test' but doesn't explain what this entails—e.g., whether it's a read-only operation, if it modifies data, what the output looks like, or any error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary details.

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 complexity of testing policies (which could involve validation, execution, or reporting), the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., test results, errors) or behavioral traits like side effects. This makes it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters as YAML content for policy and test suite. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on parameter formats, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the 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 action ('Run cerbos test') and the target ('on policy and test suite'), which is specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'validate_policy' or 'suggest_improvements', which might have overlapping purposes in the Cerbos policy testing domain.

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 'suggest_improvements'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing valid YAML content, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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