evaluate_command_safety

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'evaluates' commands and returns a policy, but it does not disclose whether the tool itself executes commands, makes external network calls, or has side effects. It also does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any destructive potential of the tool itself. This is a significant gap for a safety-related 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 three sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, evaluation method, and output policy. There is no redundant or filler content, and it is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 description lists the three possible policy outcomes, which partially covers the return value, but there is no output schema to elaborate on additional fields like confidence scores or reasons. It does not explain the meaning of Noul, Score, and Choice, nor does it describe error behavior or edge cases (e.g., empty command). For a tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100% (all five parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions the calibration method (Noul, Score, Choice) but does not map these to parameters. Since the schema covers all parameters, a baseline 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 evaluates terminal/shell command safety and returns a policy decision. The verb 'evaluates' with the resource 'terminal/shell command safety' is specific, and the three possible policy outcomes (ALLOW_AUTONOMOUS, REQUIRE_HUMAN_APPROVAL, DENY_DESTRUCTIVE) clarify its purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like evaluate_decision or jevguard_evaluate, which may have overlapping evaluation purposes.

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 provides context that this is for autonomous agents, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations. The usage is implied from the purpose rather than stated, which aligns with a score of 3.

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