evaluate_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action and input, but does not mention side effects (e.g., if it modifies state), required permissions, failure modes, or return values. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 a single sentence with only 9 words, making it very concise. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could benefit from slight restructuring to include key details without becoming verbose.

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 has 2 parameters (one nested object with no details), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to be complete. It does not explain what the evaluation produces, how to interpret results, or any constraints, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal value beyond parameter names by mentioning 'policy pack evaluation' and 'prior scan result', but does not explain the structure of the 'result' object, the format of 'policy_pack' string, or provide examples. The required parameter is an object with no further 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Run policy pack evaluation') and the resource ('against a prior scan result object'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the use of a prior scan result, which is unique among the listed tools. However, it could be more precise about what 'policy pack evaluation' entails.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or any comparisons to sibling tools like compliance_report or audit_infra_security.

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