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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'scan text', implying a read operation, but it does not disclose the return format, side effects, or any required permissions. The description is too minimal to provide behavioral transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is concise and directly states the purpose, earning a high score for structure, though it could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return value and any usage context. It lacks both, and also fails to mention when to use this versus siblings. For a simple tool it might be partially adequate, but it is incomplete for correct invocation without guessing.

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 fully describes the single 'text' parameter with its own description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('scan') and a clear resource ('text') with a defined purpose ('policy/safety issues'), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like aisafety_status or aisafety_suite, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or context for use. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'Show' but does not state whether it has side effects, what 'health' encompasses, what the response looks like, or whether any prerequisites exist. This is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's behavior.

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 short, which is a positive, but it is a structurally awkward fragment with two verbs jammed together ('Show Evaluate') and a slash creating ambiguity. It is concise in length but not clearly front-loaded or well-formed.

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 parameterless read-only status tool, the description still leaves too much unstated. It never clarifies what 'configuration / health' means, what output the agent can expect, or how this status tool relates to aisafety_scan and aisafety_suite. Without annotations or an output schema to fill gaps, the description is incomplete.

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 is empty, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies, and the vague 'configuration / health' wording doesn't harm this dimension since parameters are absent.

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 tries to indicate a status/health check for AI safety evaluation configuration, but the phrase 'Show Evaluate' is grammatically ambiguous and the slash-separated 'configuration / health' is vague. It doesn't clearly differentiate itself from sibling tools like aisafety_scan or aisafety_suite, leaving the agent to guess whether this is a read-only status view or an action that triggers an evaluation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It never mentions that this is for inspecting current health/configuration rather than running a scan or executing a suite, so an agent cannot make an informed tool-selection decision.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the action of generating an outline and reveals nothing about side effects, output format, or how the policy input is used. No behavioral context is provided beyond the basic action.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, making it concise in length. However, it is under-specified and lacks useful structural elements such as input, output, or usage context, so it reads more as an incomplete statement than a well-crafted tool description.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description leaves key questions unanswered: what format the outline takes, what sections it includes, and how the policy affects generation. It also does not address sibling tools or any return behavior, making it insufficient for fully guided 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 schema describes 'policy' as 'Policy summary' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about how the policy should be formulated or what role it plays in generating the outline.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('test suite outline'), clearly indicating the tool's core function. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings aisafety_status and aisafety_scan, but the resource noun implies a distinct deliverable.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus aisafety_status or aisafety_scan. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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