policy_status

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

The description discloses no behavioral traits. With no annotations present, the agent has no information about side effects, read vs write, permissions, or rate limits. The minimal text adds zero transparency.

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 extremely short but wasteful: it repeats the tool name without adding useful information. It is not concise in a value-adding sense; it is under-specified.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description provides no context about return values, purpose, or behavior. For a parameterless tool, the description should at least explain what status is retrieved, making this severely incomplete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies per the rule for 0 parameters.

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 is a tautology: 'Kali Agent MCP tool: policy_status' restates the tool's name without specifying any action or resource. It fails to indicate what the tool does, such as reading or checking a policy status.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., audit_log, server_health). There is no indication of context, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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