Ver política

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 implies a read-only operation by saying 'Mostra' (shows), but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, does not require special permissions, or that it returns current data. For a simple read tool this is acceptable but not rich; a statement of non-mutation would elevate it.

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, focused sentence that lists exactly what the tool returns. It is front-loaded with the action and the content, with no extraneous words or repetition. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 simple read tool with no inputs and no output schema, the description tells the agent what it will receive: allowlist, denylist, blocked patterns, and current mode. This is sufficient for basic usage, though it could be slightly more explicit about the structure or format of the output. Minor gap, not critical.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, 0 params sets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none, and it correctly omits any parameter discussion.

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's function: it shows the allowlist, denylist, blocked command patterns, and the current mode. The verb 'Mostra' is specific and the resource is unambiguous. Although there are no direct sibling tools for policy, this description is distinct from the file-related siblings and leaves no ambiguity about what is returned.

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. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, and does not reference any sibling tools. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name and description alone.

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