validate_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 the validation action but fails to describe key traits such as whether it's read-only or destructive, what the output format is (e.g., success/failure, error details), or any rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns validation results.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 a validation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, parameter details, and expected outputs, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively in context with siblings like test_policy.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. It only implies that 'policy_yaml' is related to policy syntax validation but adds no details about the parameter's format, constraints, or examples (e.g., YAML structure, required fields). This is insufficient given the low coverage.

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 as validating policy syntax using a specific method (cerbos compile). It specifies the verb 'validate' and the resource 'policy syntax', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like test_policy or suggest_improvements, which might have overlapping validation aspects.

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 such as test_policy or suggest_improvements. It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from 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.