evaluate_pedagogical_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key trait—no decision is persisted—which is important and not inferable from the schema. However, it does not say whether the call is fully read-only, what side effects if any occur, whether permissions are required, or what the response contains.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and the crucial non-persistence qualifier. There is no filler; every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

Even for a simple tool, the lack of an output schema and annotations means the description should explain the return value and parameter semantics; it does neither. The agent knows this evaluates without persisting but not what it receives back or how node_id/trigger_event influence the evaluation.

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% and the description does not mention session_id, node_id, or trigger_event at all. It therefore adds no meaning to the parameter names, despite those names being somewhat self-explanatory.

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 names a specific action ('Evaluate') and resource ('the policy for the current state'), and explicitly sets it apart from commit_pedagogical_decision by saying no decision is persisted. It would be a 5 if it clarified what kind of result the evaluation yields, since 'policy' is otherwise ambiguous.

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 phrase 'without persisting a decision' implies this is a dry-run or non-committing alternative to commit_pedagogical_decision, but it never names that tool or states when to prefer evaluation over other policy/strategy tools such as get_available_strategies. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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