check_repo_policy

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

Despite no annotations, the description explicitly states key behaviors: deterministic, network-free, read-only, and fail-closed. It also lists stable output keys, providing transparency about what the tool returns. This fully compensates for missing annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: three short sentences covering purpose, constraints, and output keys. No redundant information, front-loaded with the key message.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no siblings, the description covers purpose, constraints, and output structure. It lacks detail about what specific artifacts are checked, but the stable keys and behavior hints provide enough context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 sole parameter 'repo_path' is not described in the description, leaving its format and semantics implicit. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory given the tool's purpose, and the schema provides the type. With 0% schema coverage, some description would be better, but the parameter is simple.

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 identifies the tool as a deterministic check for standard repository governance artifacts. It specifies the action (check) and resource (repo policy) with enough specificity, though the exact artifacts could be elaborated.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or exclude inappropriate uses. With no sibling tools, the omission is less critical but still a gap.

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