thinkneo-control-plane

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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context not in annotations: the authentication requirement and a summary of return values (risk assessment, violations, recommendations). It appropriately doesn't contradict the annotations.

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?

Three tightly constructed sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by return value description, and ending with the authentication requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 presence of a complete input schema (100% coverage), output schema, and annotations, the description provides sufficient additional context (authentication needs, return summary, workflow timing) without needing to duplicate schema details. Adequately complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is appropriately met. The description implicitly clarifies the 'text' parameter by calling it a 'prompt or text' and provides workflow context ('before sending to AI provider') that adds semantic meaning to the evaluation process without redundantly listing parameters.

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 specific action (evaluate), resource (prompt/text against ThinkNEO guardrail policies), and scope. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'guardrail policies' versus general 'policy' checks or other operations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with thinkneo_check_policy.

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?

Provides important temporal context ('before sending it to an AI provider') implying when to invoke it in a workflow. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus thinkneo_check_policy or other policy-related siblings, and doesn't mention prerequisites beyond authentication.

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