governance_policy

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool can view a policy or evaluate a score and mentions the ALLOW/WARN/BLOCK threshold categories, but it does not describe the output of an evaluation, permission requirements, or whether any action has side effects.

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 front-loads the primary verb and resource, then concisely states the secondary evaluation mode. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema information.

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 two-parameter tool this is mostly adequate, but the absence of an output schema means the description should clarify what an evaluation returns. It also lacks any comparison to sibling risk-assessment tools, which could lead an agent to misuse this tool for broader risk scoring.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds useful context about ALLOW/WARN/BLOCK thresholds, which helps interpret the score parameter, but it does not add extra detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names two concrete operations: viewing the security governance policy and evaluating a score against ALLOW/WARN/BLOCK thresholds. This is clearer than a vague 'manage governance' phrasing, though it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings like assess_risk.

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 implies the two actions but gives no guidance on when this tool should be preferred over sibling tools such as assess_risk or scan_url. It also does not state any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the schema alone.

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