nudgeonly_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only and returns guardrails, which discloses its behavioral traits. However, it omits details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the response is plain text or structured, leaving some gaps.

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 long, front-loading the core purpose with no extraneous words. It is efficient and every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It specifies the domain (NudgeOnlyAPI) and nature (read-only policy). However, it could briefly define what 'guardrails' means in this context to ensure full understanding.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-level details, but as per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adequately explains what the tool returns, compensating for the lack of parameter info.

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 PinballWake NudgeOnlyAPI guardrails, specifying it is a read-only policy for painpoint hints. It distinguishes itself from sibling policies by the 'NudgeOnly' context, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like igniteonly_policy or 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 implies usage for retrieving NudgeOnlyAPI guardrails and notes it is read-only with no writes or decisions. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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