pol_check

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool executes template steps respecting dependency chains and critical flags, and returns structured results including health percentage, per-step status, duration, and TIBET provenance. It does not mention side effects or required permissions, but since it's a check, it's likely read-only.

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 concise (8 lines), front-loads the main purpose, and provides structured details on returns and arguments without unnecessary repetition.

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 and no output schema, the description explains the return format (health, per-step status, duration, TIBET chain) and behavior. It lacks error handling details but is otherwise 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining the 'template' parameter (name or path with examples) and the 'output_json' parameter (default true). This adds critical semantics 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 runs a process integrity check against a template, which is distinct from sibling tools like pol_diff, pol_quick_health, pol_report, pol_template_info, and pol_templates.

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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives like pol_quick_health or pol_report. Usage is implied by the description of a full integrity check.

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