enforce_intent

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. Discloses that tool returns a decision (allow/review/block) without executing commands. However, it lacks details on error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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?

Single sentence with 14 words, front-loaded verb, no filler. Efficiently communicates core action and result.

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?

No output schema, so description must explain return value. It names the three possible outcomes adequately. However, given 5 parameters (including a nested object), the description does not elaborate on parameter usage or edge cases.

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 baseline is 3. Description does not add additional meaning beyond schema; no usage hints or examples for parameters like manifest or policy_pack_path.

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?

Description clearly states action ('apply'), resource ('intent sandbox manifest'), and outcome ('return allow, review, or block without executing commands'). Distinguishes from sibling tools which are about explanation, validation, or scanning.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Among siblings, there are validation tools but no mention of selection criteria. Context about when to choose enforce_intent over others is absent.

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