Check policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully indicates the tool is non-destructive and read-only. However, it does not cover other important behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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 sentence of 25 words that conveys the essential purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose.

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 the tool has 5 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., 'allowed', 'blocked', 'requires approval'), which is critical for an agent to use the response. While the purpose is clear, the description lacks details on output and parameter interactions.

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 20% (only 'live' has a description). The tool description does not explain any parameters beyond the overall purpose. For example, it does not clarify that 'live' affects policy evaluation or what values 'capability' and 'provider' mean in context. The description should compensate for the low schema coverage but fails to do so.

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 purpose: to ask whether a specific capability is allowed, blocked, or requires approval for a given provider and environment. It uses a specific verb+resource structure and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'simulate_action' or 'approve_action' by emphasizing that it executes nothing.

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 states 'WITHOUT executing anything,' which implies it is safe to use before performing actual actions. While it does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare to alternatives, the context is clear enough for basic usage guidance.

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