tf_policy_check

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

With no annotations, the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It mentions the conditional execution of OPA/Conftest, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what happens on policy violations, or if any state is modified. This leaves the agent uninformed about side effects and failure behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and output. There is no extraneous information; every word contributes to the understanding of the tool's function.

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 tool appears straightforward, but important context is missing: no mention of required dependencies (like a generated plan), how to interpret the report, or error conditions. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more operational context for the agent to use it safely and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by clarifying the parameter's meaning. It does not mention workspaceId at all, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from the name alone. The simple name and pattern offer some hint, but the description adds no value over the schema.

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 ('Runs Checkov and OPA/Conftest') against a specific resource ('current plan') and the outcome ('merged policy report'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tf_plan or tf_apply, which serve different purposes. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 concrete guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a plan must exist), nor does it indicate scenarios where this tool should be skipped. The only hint is the phrase 'if configured', which is not enough to guide selection.

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