natural_language_to_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output requires approval before enforcement, implying it is a non-final action, but does not state whether it is a read-only operation, if it modifies state, or any side effects. Additional context on safety or permissions 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant words. Each part ('Convert', 'natural-language security goal', 'draft YAML policy rule', 'requires approval before enforce') adds distinct 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?

No output schema exists, and the description offers minimal detail on the return value (just 'draft YAML policy rule'). In the context of 50+ sibling tools, more guidance on when to use this vs. similar ones would enhance completeness.

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 description adds no new meaning to the 'goal' parameter beyond the schema description (both mention 'natural language policy goal'). The 'availableTools' parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description. With 50% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter explanation.

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?

Specifically states the verb 'Convert' and the resource 'natural-language security goal' into 'draft YAML policy rule', clearly distinguishing from the reverse sibling tool 'policy_to_natural_language' and alternative 'generate_policy_from_observations'. Also notes the approval requirement, adding precision.

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?

Implies usage for converting natural language into a draft policy, but offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with alternatives like 'ab_test_policy' or 'generate_policy_from_observations'. The approval requirement hints at cautious use, but guidance is minimal.

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