get-policy-coverage-report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the report's analytical purpose and the covered-vs-blocked framing, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether the report is read-only, whether it triggers any background computation, or what the output format looks like. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and purpose are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the use-case context. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more compact.

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?

For a report-generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the report contains and how it's returned. The covered-vs-blocked framing helps, but an agent still doesn't know whether the report is a file, a JSON object, or a summary. Given the tool's moderate complexity and the absence of structured metadata, this is a clear gap.

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 three parameters. The description adds the high-level concept of 'traffic flows' and 'policy'd' but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate'), a resource ('policy coverage report for an app'), and the report's purpose ('showing what traffic is covered by existing rules vs what would be blocked'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-traffic-flows or get-rulesets, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 when to use it ('Helps understand how much of an app's traffic is already policy'd'), which gives an agent a clear context signal. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for related tasks like get-traffic-flows-summary or find-unmanaged-traffic.

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