PolicyGuard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' and 'Generates'), describes the report content structure, mentions default values for parameters, and provides example usage patterns. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness constraints.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, examples) and appropriately sized. Every sentence adds value, though the example section could be slightly more concise. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first, followed by supporting details.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, parameters, return structure, and provides usage examples. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to exhaustively document return values, and it provides adequate context for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter documentation in the 'Args' section, including all 3 parameters with their purposes, acceptable values, and defaults. It adds substantial meaning beyond what the bare schema provides, explaining what each parameter controls in the compliance report generation.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Get compliance status and security health metrics', 'Generates a compliance report') and resources ('policy violations, security incidents, overall governance health'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_audit_log' or 'report_incident' by focusing on comprehensive compliance assessment rather than logging or incident reporting.

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 through the example scenarios ('Get daily compliance status', 'Get weekly report with all details'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_audit_log' or 'validate_action'. It provides context about time periods and detail levels but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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