governance_evaluate_operation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only evaluation and explicitly states it does not authorize or execute, indicating no side effects. This is transparent for a preflight check, though it could mention other behaviors like statelessness or error handling.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a critical constraint. 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 tool has two required opaque object parameters with no schema descriptions and the context of governance evaluation, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain what constitutes a valid operation or packet, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly despite an output schema existing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither 'packet' nor 'operation' have descriptions. The overall description mentions 'declarative preflight' but does not explain the structure or purpose of these parameters. The agent is left guessing what fields belong inside these objects.

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 uses specific verb 'evaluate' and resource 'declarative preflight', giving a clear purpose. It explicitly states what it does not do ('never authorize or execute'), which helps scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like governance_evaluate_gate or governance_validate_task_packet.

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 preflight evaluation and provides a negative constraint ('never authorize or execute'), offering some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools, nor does it describe prerequisites or context.

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