runtime_evaluate_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only (evaluates, does not execute) and the expected decision values. It does not mention side effects, auth needs, or rate limits, but the overall behavior is transparent enough.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds necessary context. No redundant words.

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 there is an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, scope, and decision outcomes. It could mention prerequisites like delegation receipt, but the required parameters already imply that.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the overall purpose and that the tool returns a decision payload, but it does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond the schema. Still, the schema descriptions are clear, so the combined effect is good.

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 one proposed action with AVP Runtime Gate and returns a decision (ALLOW, WAITING_FOR_HUMAN_APPROVAL, BLOCK). It distinguishes itself from executing actions, which separates it from sibling tools like execute_after_approval.

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 explicitly states the tool only evaluates, does not execute, and does not intercept other calls, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming of alternative tools like approve_action or execute_after_approval.

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