Conftest push

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

Beyond annotations indicating destructive and non-idempotent behavior, the description adds that this tool never handles credentials, requires pre-configured registry auth, and that the policy directory must be in OPA_MCP_ALLOWED_PATHS. This provides useful behavioral context.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds credentials handling, third adds path and binary requirements. Information is front-loaded and no unnecessary words.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers all critical aspects: action, prerequisites, credentials, path constraints, binary requirement. No gaps.

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%, but the description adds value by specifying the default for policy (`./policy`), its path constraint (allowed roots), and existence requirement, which go beyond the schema's description.

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 action ('Package the local Rego policy directory as an OCI artifact and push it to a registry using `conftest push`'), specifying the verb and resource, and differentiates from siblings like conftest_pull and opa_bundle_build.

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 this tool (push policies) and includes prerequisites (pre-configured credentials, allowed paths, conftest on PATH), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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