policy_dry_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool is non‑destructive ('without performing any action') and returns allow/deny reasons, but it fails to mention permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the PolicyContext is invalid.

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 concise single sentence of 13 words, front‑loaded with the verb and key information. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 complexity (one required nested object parameter) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a PolicyContext is, what fields are needed, or the format of the return value.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and only a single 'policy_context' object parameter with no nested schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it merely repeats the parameter name without explaining required fields or structure.

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 verb 'evaluate' and the resource 'PolicyContext', and explains the outcome (allow/deny with reasons). It distinguishes from sibling tools which are for listing, reading, or launching other entities, though it could be more specific about what a PolicyContext is.

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 phrase 'without performing any action' implies it is for testing purposes, warning the agent that no side effects occur. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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