evaluate_intent

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the tool 'returns real pass/fail verdict,' but does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The lack of safety or mutation context leaves the agent guessing.

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 sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded with the core action. The phrase 'real pass/fail verdict' adds a behavioral nuance. The '[OPERATOR]' prefix is odd but not detrimental. Overall, it is tightly written and efficient.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the verdict looks like and how to interpret it, but it does not. It also fails to explain the 'Values Floor policy engine' or how the four parameters influence the evaluation. The tool has moderate complexity, and the description leaves important gaps.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description need not restate them. The description adds no extra meaning about how parameters like delegation_scope or delegation_spend_limit affect evaluation, but the schema already provides adequate documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 evaluates an intent against the Values Floor policy engine and returns a pass/fail verdict. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'intent' focus distinguishes it from many sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related tools like evaluate_revocation_impact or evaluate_threshold.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The context with many governance/policy siblings makes this gap more significant.

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