cloudpin_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Nothing is run,' which is a meaningful dry-run disclosure. It also describes the shape of the result (per-call verdicts of allow/block/ask with reasons and fixes), which is behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core question and ending with the important 'nothing is run' guarantee. Every sentence carries information, though the opening phrasing 'as an agent's?' is slightly awkward.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by summarizing the return structure (calls, accounts, verdict, reason, fix). For a two-parameter read-only check tool, this is nearly complete; only the sibling relationship is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (command, cwd) are documented in the schema, so the description need not elaborate. The example in the schema already shows compound commands, so the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific evaluation verb and resource: it answers whether a shell command would be permitted, and enumerates the return contents (each cloud CLI call, account, verdict, reason, fix). It implicitly contrasts with the sibling cloudpin_status by focusing on per-command policy checks rather than status, though it never names that sibling.

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 framing 'Would cloudpin allow this shell command' implies a pre-flight check use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it versus cloudpin_status, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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