check_action_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's advisory and read-only nature, explaining that it never applies actions and only returns verdicts. It also mentions policy knobs via environment variables, providing complete behavioral 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 detailed and well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then elaborating on verdicts, examples, and triggers. While it is somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, only 1 required) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and parameter semantics. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to determine when and how to use the 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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining the 'action_type' parameter with examples of reversible and one-way actions, and describes how cost parameters (monthly_delta_usd, tf_dir, helm_diff) relate to cost changes. However, some parameters like 'budget_name' and 'terraform_plan_json' are not explicitly explained, though the overall context covers most usage.

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 is an 'Advisory policy gate' that checks if a proposed action should proceed, returning allow/escalate/block. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools by focusing on policy evaluation rather than audits or cost queries.

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 provides explicit good triggers such as 'can the agent do X', 'is this action within policy', and 'is it safe to auto-apply this'. It also emphasizes that the tool is advisory only and does not execute actions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative sibling tools.

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