validate_policy

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

The description discloses that the tool does not make decisions (only sanity-checks) and lists specific validation behaviors. However, it lacks details on side effects, permissions, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but provides some 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no extraneous words. It is concise, though a bullet list might improve scanability.

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 description covers the tool's purpose but does not mention the return format (e.g., boolean, list of errors). Since there is no output schema, the description should indicate what the output looks like for an agent to handle results properly.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with detailed descriptions. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying the validation logic (catches empty allow list, etc.), which helps the agent understand tool behavior.

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 action (sanity-check a policy spec) and resource (policy spec). It lists specific validation catches (empty allow list, overly broad wildcards, malformed host patterns), which distinguishes it from siblings like check_url and check_urls_batch.

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 implies it is a validation-only tool ('without making any decision') and lists what it catches, but does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when to use it over check_url/check_urls_batch. Guidance is inferred but not explicit.

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