Evaluate Action Intent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it produces a 'real pass/fail verdict,' hinting at binary output semantics, but says nothing about failure handling, what happens on a fail verdict, or any auth/operator requirements implied by the '[OPERATOR]' tag.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, with zero padding. The cryptic '[OPERATOR]' prefix is the only element that is not self-explanatory.

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?

With no output schema, the description's note that it returns a pass/fail verdict is helpful, but it does not explain the verdict's structure, what a failure entails, or the delegation scope/spend semantics that the evaluation depends on. Adequate but with clear gaps for a policy-evaluation 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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (intent_id, delegation_scope, delegation_spent, delegation_spend_limit). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Evaluate) plus the resource (intent) and the target system (Values Floor policy engine), and notes it returns a pass/fail verdict. It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate itself from the many sibling policy-check tools such as check_tier, check_aggregate_constraints, or check_purpose_permitted.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the numerous other policy/constraint evaluation siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g. whether create_intent must run first). The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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