check_action

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: safety enforcement, supported policy rules, return format, and a fail-safe that denies on unreadable input. No mention of rate limits or auth, but the critical behavioral traits are covered.

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 three sentences with no waste. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: purpose/policy support, return format, fail-safe and role context. Front-loaded with 'SAFETY' for quick identification.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format. It covers purpose, policy details, fail-safe behavior, and role as a pre-execution gate. It does not clarify the optionality of the policy parameter or provide examples, but overall it is sufficiently complete for agent use.

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 100% (both parameters described). The description repeats schema content with slight context (e.g., 'action' as proposed action with tool and args; 'policy' as rules with arrays). This adds minimal value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 it is a safety tool that enforces policy on a proposed agent action before execution, with specific supported policies and return format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which perform blockchain operations.

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 clear context for when to use: before running an agent action to enforce safety policies. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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