aadc.audit_policy_mentions_sdks

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

The description states it is a 'Warn-only check', which indicates non-destructive behavior. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as what happens if the policy is missing, how SDK dependencies are detected, or any side effects.

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?

A single, concise sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous information. Every part earns its place.

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 is adequate for a simple audit check with only two parameters. However, it lacks details about what 'Standards 4, 9' refer to and does not explain the return format or behavior when issues are found. Could be more complete.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (projectRoot, allowlists). The description adds context ('privacy policy', 'external-service SDKs') but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it is a 'Warn-only check that the privacy policy names every external-service SDK the app depends on', providing a specific verb (check) and resource (privacy policy vs SDKs). It also references 'Standards 4, 9' which differentiates it from other audit tools like 'aadc.audit_sdks' or 'aadc.audit_defaults'.

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 usage contexts (privacy policy checks) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'aadc.audit_sdks') or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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