Metis · Data Guardian — Set Network Policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the effect of each policy mode (strict, normal, offline) and that it applies to all agents, but does not mention requirements, reversibility, or potential disruptions (e.g., dropping connections).

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 very concise, using a brief sentence followed by a bullet list and explicit args. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

For a simple one-parameter setter with an output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It could mention return behavior or confirmation, but the output schema likely covers that. Missing failure conditions or required permissions.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines the only parameter 'policy' with three valid values and their meanings, which adds significant value beyond the empty schema. However, it could have listed the values as an explicit enum.

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 'Set the current network access policy for all agents' and distinguishes three modes with explicit explanations. This differentiates it from the sibling 'get_network_policy' tool.

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 explains what each policy does but does not provide when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or guidance on when to choose which policy. However, the context is clear regarding the tool's function.

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