validate_security_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('validate') without explaining how it behaves—e.g., whether it's read-only, if it modifies data, what permissions are needed, or what the output looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without 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?

Given the complexity of security validation, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or result expectations, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer. This is insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 ('policy_file' and 'scan_results'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or validation logic. 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 'Validate security policy compliance' states a clear purpose with a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('security policy compliance'), but it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'generate_security_report' or the various scan tools. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation.

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. With siblings like 'generate_security_report' and multiple scan tools, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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