policy_check_intent

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the expected failure mode (policy_evaluator_unconfigured), the session-bound tier, and that discovery does not confer authority — genuinely useful behavioral context. It does not reconcile why a read-only-sounding 'probe' carries readOnlyHint=false, which an agent may find confusing.

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 tight sentences with the critical caveat front-loaded. The bracketed capability/tier/API/authority prefix is dense and somewhat cryptic, but it is compact and information-bearing rather than 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?

Adequate for a probe with no output schema, since it names the canonical failure response. However, for a 6-parameter tool with nested objects and zero schema documentation, the description leaves too much of the call contract unstated.

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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters including nested objects. The description clarifies intentId only implicitly via the API path and hints that the 'policy' param carries untrusted caller data, but leaves policy, context, sessionId, agentAddress, and sessionToken undocumented in both schema and 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?

Identifies a specific resource ('generic intent policy gate') and a specific action ('readiness probe'), and even names the backing endpoint. It stops short of contrasting with siblings like simulate_intent or prepare_intent, so an agent must infer that this probes rather than performs a policy check.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'readiness probe' plus 'until the server policy evaluator is configured this returns policy_evaluator_unconfigured' tells an agent it is a precondition check, and 'public callers cannot provide trusted policy decisions' excludes one class of caller. No explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative instruction is given.

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