Create a digest-bound action envelope and evaluate deterministic policy before execution, providing verifiable authorization decisions for MCP tool calls.
Create a digest-bound action envelope and evaluate deterministic policy; this Phase 1 tool never executes the action
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| toolRef | Yes | ||
| arguments | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a critical safety trait—'never executes the action'—which prevents misuse. However, it omits other behaviors such as side effects, prerequisites, or what happens on policy failure. The single disclosed trait is valuable but not comprehensive.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key limitation. It avoids filler but uses jargon ('digest-bound action envelope') that may reduce clarity; still, it is appropriately compact for the information it delivers.
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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description must stand alone. It does not define key terms (digest, action envelope, deterministic policy), explain inputs, describe return values, or provide usage context. Many operational details are missing, making it insufficient for a complex planning tool.
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 provides no explanation of the two parameters (toolRef and arguments). It does not clarify their roles or formats. With zero schema documentation and zero description compensation, agents are left to guess parameter semantics.
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 tool's function: it creates a digest-bound action envelope and evaluates deterministic policy, explicitly noting it never executes the action. This verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from siblings like catalog.search (search) and policy.explain (explanation), making the purpose unambiguous.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a planning/evaluation phase via 'Phase 1' and 'never executes,' but does not mention sibling tools or conditions for selection. An agent would have to infer when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.