generate_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the core purpose. It does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, what 'all CRUD' includes, naming conventions, or any side effects, which is a significant gap for a generation 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 a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words and is easy to parse.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not indicate required inputs, behavior around file generation, or what the resulting class contains beyond 'all CRUD'.

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 only 25% (only 'model' is described). The description does not explain 'modelClass', 'userClass', or 'extraMethods', so the agent must guess their meaning. The tool description adds no value to the sparse parameter documentation.

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's function: generating a Laravel policy class with all CRUD authorization methods. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from the similar sibling tool 'generate_full_policy', preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_full_policy' or other generation tools. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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