evaluate_guardrails

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses reading from DB and that persist=true records evaluation, but does not detail side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. Adequate but not complete.

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 key purpose, no wasted words. Could be more structured, but efficient.

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 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides core functionality but lacks return format details, as_of_date format, and db_path role. Moderately complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains persist behavior, but as_of_date and db_path are not described. Only one of three parameters gains additional meaning.

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 it evaluates operating guardrails (cash floor, drift threshold, window age, debt avalanche) and returns findings ordered by severity. It distinguishes from siblings like apply_guardrail_rules (which applies rules) and list_guardrail_findings (which lists existing findings).

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 implies usage for evaluating guardrails, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_guardrail_findings or detect_drift. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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