nudgeonly_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states read-only and safe operation ('no writes, no decisions'), which is helpful, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. Additional context would improve transparency.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds constraint details efficiently.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the returned guardrails look like, their structure, or any metadata. For a tool with no output schema, this omission leaves agents uncertain about the response format.

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?

No parameters exist, so the schema already fully defines the input. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, earning the baseline score of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 returns the PinballWake NudgeOnlyAPI guardrails, specifying it is a red-lane, read-only policy. The verb 'Return' and resource 'guardrails' are specific. The mention of 'no writes, no decisions, no truth-setting' distinguishes it from write-capable policies like pushonly_policy.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other policy tools like pushonly_policy or igniteonly_policy. It implies read-only usage but lacks comparative guidance or prerequisites.

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