policy_check

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

The description implies a non-destructive check by stating it 'Returns pass/fail status' and 'Validates...' but does not explicitly declare it as read-only. Without annotations, this is an adequate baseline, though the agent may need to infer it does not modify state.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff: purpose, usage context, and a brief summary of what it validates and returns. Every sentence carries weight.

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 simple input schema (2 params, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and output nature (pass/fail with findings). It lacks precise output format detail, but the context suggests it returns a structured result.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Project root directory', 'Output format' with enum). The description adds marginal value beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 tool's purpose: 'Check project against compliance policies defined in .guardviberc.' It specifies the verb 'check' and resource 'project against compliance policies,' and differentiates from sibling tools by referencing a specific configuration file and use cases like CI/CD gates.

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 explicitly recommends usage in CI/CD pipelines and before releases, and lists what it validates: custom framework requirements, severity thresholds, etc. It does not mention alternatives among siblings, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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