ab_test_policy

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'A/B test' without clarifying if the tool is read-only, modifies state, requires authorization, or has side effects. This is insufficient for understanding the tool's impact.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 tool's simplicity, the description lacks essential context: it does not explain what 'A/B test' means operationally, what the output looks like, or any return value. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide that information.

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 already describes the parameter 'proposedPolicyYaml' adequately, and the description adds no new semantic detail. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 performs an A/B test on a proposed policy change against historical attack corpus, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'tune_policy_rule' or 'suggest_policy_improvements'. However, it could be more explicit about the scope and what 'against historical attack corpus' entails.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer it over 'tune_policy_rule' or 'generate_policy_from_observations'. It does not mention prerequisites or limitations.

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