check_mcp_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('evaluate') without specifying return values, side effects, whether it is read-only, or any constraints (e.g., 'local' policy source). The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence with no filler. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity—three parameters with nested objects and no output schema. The brevity is efficient but does not structure information (e.g., separate usage, output, or examples) to aid comprehension.

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 three required parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the policy should be structured, or what 'local' means. An agent cannot reliably call this tool without additional information.

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 explain any of the three required parameters (tool_name, arguments, policy). Since the schema provides no descriptions and the description does not compensate, the agent has no understanding of how to construct valid arguments or what the policy object should contain.

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: evaluating an MCP tool call against a policy. It uses a specific verb ('Evaluate') and names the resource ('an MCP tool call'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_tool_call_safety, though the mention of 'allowlist/approval/destination policy' hints at a distinct policy-checking role.

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 versus its siblings (e.g., check_tool_call_safety, scan_prompt_for_injection). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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