validate_policy

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

No annotations provided, and description does not disclose side effects, read-only nature, or behavior on invalid input. It implies validation but does not confirm whether it is purely analytical or potentially mutative.

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?

Extremely concise (4 words) but at the cost of essential information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently complete, lacking context that a longer description would provide.

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?

For a validation tool with a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description fails to explain return values, error conditions, or the scope of validation. It is insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and only one parameter 'policy_data' as an object, description adds no detail about structure, required fields, or expected format. The agent receives no guidance beyond the parameter name.

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?

Description states 'Validate policy rules and conditions' which gives a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from CRUD siblings. However, it lacks specificity on what 'validate' entails (e.g., syntax, compliance, permissions), making it somewhat vague.

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 guidelines on when to use this tool vs alternatives like create_policy or get_policy. It does not mention common usage patterns (e.g., pre-validation before creation) or scenarios where it should not be used.

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