check_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden and does so exceptionally: it discloses that the tool never performs the action, that it returns ALLOW or DENY, that DENY cites a governing clause, and that the agent must not act on a denial. This is comprehensive for a read-only check tool.

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 only two sentences long, yet every clause adds meaningful information: the action to check, the return values, and the behavioral constraint. It is front-loaded with purpose and highly efficient.

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 having no output schema, the description explicitly explains the return values (ALLOW/DENY) and behavioral constraints, and the schema fully documents all parameters. For a simple check tool with complete schema coverage, no important information is missing.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptive text for all five parameters, so the description need not restate them. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is consistent with the high schema coverage 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('intended action against the confirmed policy'), clearly distinguishing it from performing the action. The explicit ALLOW/DENY return semantics further clarify the tool's purpose.

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 clearly states when to use the tool ('before performing it') and includes the important rule that the agent may not act when the tool returns DENY. It does not mention alternatives, but there are no sibling tools to differentiate from, so this is acceptable.

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