trigger_access_policy_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the check runs immediately, but does not explain side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous.

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?

The description is composed of two concise, front-loaded sentences. Every word adds value, with no redundant or vague language.

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 the complexity of sibling tools and the presence of an output schema, the description effectively communicates the core purpose and immediate execution. It could be improved by briefly noting prerequisites (e.g., policy existence) or mentioning that the output schema provides result details, but it remains sufficiently complete for a simple single-parameter 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?

The input schema already describes the policy_id parameter with a note not to URL-encode (100% coverage). The description adds no new parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 triggers a manual compliance check for a grant/access policy, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_policy and get_policies by specifying the immediate execution aspect.

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 using this tool when an immediate policy check is needed instead of waiting for a scheduled run. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear and no other sibling appears to offer the same immediate check.

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