Run a pre-flight policy check before file edits, commands, or sensitive reads to enforce repository rules and block unauthorized actions.
Pre-flight PolicyPin check. Call before file edits, commands, or sensitive reads. A blocked result is mandatory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| intent | No | What the agent plans to do | |
| target | Yes | File path, URI, or command to evaluate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does mention that a 'blocked result is mandatory,' which hints at the tool returning a status or decision. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what the exact output format is, or how to interpret a non-blocked result. This is a partial disclosure but lacks completeness for a pre-flight check.
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 exceptionally concise and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose ('Pre-flight PolicyPin check'), provides explicit usage timing, and states the key behavioral requirement in three short sentences. There is no redundant or extraneous content, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on quickly.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey how the agent should use the result. It mentions 'blocked result' but does not explain the response structure, error handling, or what constitutes a successful (non-blocked) outcome. While the usage context is clear, the lack of return format information leaves a notable gap for an agent that needs to programmatically handle the result.
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 covers both parameters fully: intent ('What the agent plans to do') and target ('File path, URI, or command to evaluate'). The description adds no additional semantic information about these parameters, so it does not exceed the baseline established by the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a score 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 is a 'Pre-flight PolicyPin check' with a specific purpose: to be called before file edits, commands, or sensitive reads. This distinguishes it from the sibling policypin_list, which presumably lists policies, and provides a specific verb (check) and resource (PolicyPin). The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.
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 explicitly specifies when to call the tool: before file edits, commands, or sensitive reads. It also adds a crucial behavioral constraint: 'A blocked result is mandatory,' indicating the agent must respect the outcome. This provides clear, actionable usage guidance without ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.