PolicyGuard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: this is a registration/mutation operation (implied by 'register'), it affects trust levels and tool permissions, and it returns a structured JSON result. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides substantial operational context beyond basic purpose.

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 statement, parameter explanations, return format, and example. While somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value. The front-loaded purpose statement is strong, though the detailed parameter explanations could be more concise while maintaining clarity.

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 (7 parameters, mutation operation), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides comprehensive context. It explains the tool's purpose, all parameters with semantics, the return format, and includes a practical example. The output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it adequately covers what's needed for effective use.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantic explanations for all 7 parameters, including examples, format requirements (e.g., 'JSON array', 'JSON object'), and allowed values for 'trust_level'. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage clear and actionable.

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: 'Register a new agent with Guardian for security policy evaluation.' It specifies the verb ('register'), resource ('agent'), and context ('Guardian for security policy evaluation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_policy' or 'get_audit_log' which handle different security functions.

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: to register agents for security policy evaluation, with implications about trust levels and tool permissions. It mentions that 'Unregistered agents are treated as 'low' trust,' which helps understand the consequences of not using it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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