check_policy

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions checking policy but omits critical details: is the tool read-only? Does it throw an error or return boolean if disallowed? No side effects or performance hints are given.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args section is reasonably concise, though some information could be moved to the schema descriptions.

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 an output schema exists (not shown), the return value is implicit, but the description could still benefit from mentioning what the tool returns. The parameter count is low, but without behavioral details, the description feels incomplete for a policy-checking 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description provides the only semantic context. It gives useful examples for 'action_type' (e.g., 'data:read:users') and clarifies 'agent_id' as optional, but the agent_id description is minimal and does not explain its impact on policy evaluation.

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 'Check if an action is allowed by the organization's policies' with specific action examples, effectively conveying the primary function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'gate_action' or 'preflight_check', which could cause confusion.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'gate_action' or 'enforced_tool_call'). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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