Summarize Policy Engines

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

Explicitly states 'read-only summary', indicating safe operation. No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. Lacks detail on performance or side effects, but summary nature suggests low risk.

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?

Single sentence clearly conveys purpose, constraints, and behavior. No extraneous words.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description adequately covers core functionality. Could be enhanced by mentioning return format, but current level suffices for this simple 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?

No parameters in input schema (schema coverage 100%), so baseline is 4. Description adds meaningful context by specifying the tools summarized (Kyverno, Gatekeeper) and the output type (counts).

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?

Description clearly states it summarises Kyverno and Gatekeeper policy reports and violation counts, specifying the resource and action. It differentiates from sibling tools like detection or listing utilities.

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?

Description implies usage when policy engines exist ('when those API groups exist'), but offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like detect_operators or list_resources.

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