sootool.policy_validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by stating no file is saved, that a name triggers domain-schema checking, and that auto_fix_sha256 yields a fixed_sha256. It does not discuss the sensitivity_threshold behavior or how findings are classified, leaving some behavioral detail to the output schema.

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?

Four short sentences: purpose and return shape first, then conditional behaviors, then sibling routing. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what it does, what it won't do) is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be fully spelled out, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent contract. Given a 5-parameter validation tool, the only real hole is the unexplained sensitivity_threshold parameter; otherwise an agent has enough to call it correctly and to know not to expect persistence.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains name (triggers domain-schema validation) and auto_fix_sha256 (returns fixed_sha256), and implicitly covers yaml_content and domain via the purpose sentence, but sensitivity_threshold is never mentioned anywhere, leaving one of five parameters undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('정책 YAML 문자열을 검증해') and states the report shape returned (status, findings, sha256). It also distinguishes itself from the mutating siblings by naming sootool.policy_propose and sootool.policy_activate as the tools for actual application, so an agent can tell it apart without opening a schema.

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?

It clearly routes the agent away from this tool for writes ('실제 반영은 sootool.policy_propose 와 sootool.policy_activate 를 쓴다') and notes the tool does not persist files. What is missing is an explicit positive directive such as 'run this before proposing/activating', but the usage context is unambiguous.

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