evaluate_policy_aware

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's features like policy profiles, evidence calibration, and confidence scoring but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or whether it is read-only. Given the lack of annotations, the description is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 with two sentences: the first lists key features, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded with essential information and contains no extraneous text.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description covers the high-level purpose and usage but omits details about the output format, confidence scoring specifics, or uncertainty reporting structure. Given the complexity, the description is adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining how parameters like evidence and policyProfile fit into the overall evaluation, but it does not significantly augment the meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 performs policy-aware evaluation with specific named profiles, evidence calibration, and confidence scoring. It differentiates from siblings like evaluate_code by focusing on compliance and vertical-specific requirements.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when code must meet specific compliance or vertical requirements,' providing a clear directive. It implies alternatives for general evaluation but does not explicitly state when not to use, which would push it to 5.

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