Batch-evaluate OPA policy against input files

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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that failing files produce an `error` field rather than a `result` field in `results`, which is useful behavioral detail beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and key differentiator. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the result format (per-file, error vs result) but could elaborate on the overall return structure. Still sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds clarification on mutual exclusivity of `bundle` and `dataPaths` and references the CLI command, providing context that goes beyond schema definitions.

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?

Clearly states the tool evaluates OPA policy decisions against multiple input files using `opa exec --format=json`. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `rego_eval` by emphasizing batch processing and per-file results, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly recommends use in CI pipelines for checking many config files, and contrasts with `rego_eval` for single input. It also notes the mutual exclusivity of `bundle` and `dataPaths`, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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