chimera_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'apply' policies but does not explain what 'apply' entails—e.g., whether it modifies state, requires permissions, or has side effects. This lack of transparency for a mutation-like action is a significant gap.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and provides concrete examples. It is front-loaded with the verb 'List, inspect, or apply' and the resource 'reusable constraint policies'. The list of policy names adds value without excessive length.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, the effect of 'apply', or when each action is appropriate. A user or AI agent would need additional documentation to use the tool 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 description adds context by naming example policies and clarifying the 'inspect' action (mapped to 'get' in the schema). However, it does not explain the 'value', 'envelope', 'tool_name', or 'namespace' parameters. With schema coverage at 50%, the description partially compensates but leaves key parameters unclear.

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 'List, inspect, or apply reusable constraint policies' and provides concrete examples like 'strict_factual, brainstorm, medical_cautious', making the tool's purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like chimera_constrain or chimera_gate, so it loses a point for sibling distinction.

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 lists possible actions but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, there is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where list vs apply is appropriate, nor any comparison to other chimera tools that might handle similar tasks.

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