evaluate_intent

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states it returns a verdict; it does not mention idempotency, side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 short and front-loaded with the verb and key information. It is efficient, though could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the structure of the verdict, possible error states, or constraints like the policy engine being loaded. The agent would need to infer from the intent_id parameter that a prior create_intent call is needed.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already convey.

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 uses a specific verb 'Evaluate' and resource 'intent against the Values Floor policy engine', and clearly states the output 'Returns real pass/fail verdict'. This distinguishes it from sibling 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., needing a created intent), or when not to use it. The description lacks context for decision-making among many sibling tools.

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