security_test_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the simulation aspect, but doesn't specify whether the test query is actually executed (and could have side effects), whether it's read-only, or what the response format is. This is a significant gap for a tool that executes a user-supplied query.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose efficiently, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a terse one-liner, the description is incomplete for a tool that executes arbitrary queries. It doesn't explain return values, safety implications, or how to construct the user_context object, leaving the agent to infer critical details.

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 parameter descriptions already document each field. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but with full coverage the baseline 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 verb ('test') and resource ('policy'), and the 'simulating different user contexts' phrase distinguishes it from policy management tools like create/drop/list. It could be more specific about what 'test' entails, but it's not a tautology.

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 phrase 'Test a policy' implies this tool is used when you want to verify policy behavior under various user contexts. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use it over security_list_policies or security_check_rls_status, or mention any prerequisites.

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