Explain action risk

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It states the tool does not execute the action, implying it is non-destructive, but does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or what happens if policies fail. This is minimal transparency.

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, which is concise, but it omits critical details that could be added without excessive length. It achieves brevity at the expense of completeness.

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 8 parameters, no schema description coverage, no output schema, and a complex purpose (explaining risk), the description is vastly incomplete. It does not explain the return value, how to interpret results, or the meaning of 'local policy' and 'DashClaw guard context'.

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 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters (e.g., 'live', 'tool', 'provider', 'capability', 'environment'). The agent receives no additional meaning beyond the JSON schema field names and types.

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 indicates it is a dry-run that evaluates local policy and DashClaw guard context without executing the action. This distinguishes it from execution-oriented siblings like 'approve_action' or 'simulate_action', though 'local policy' and 'DashClaw guard context' are not further explained.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_policy' or 'simulate_action'. There is no mention of when to prefer it or when not to use it.

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