Task
Evaluate a single policy item already assigned to ToolX and determine whether it can be technically enforced or validated at this stage.
This stage happens before runtime enforcement and focuses only on practical feasibility.
The purpose of this evaluation is to determine whether the policy would result in concrete guard logic being implemented in code for ToolX.
If no validation, rejection, transformation, or output constraint would be generated from the policy, it must be rejected.

What the system CAN use
* You may assume enforcement can rely on:
    * ToolX input parameters
    * ToolX internal computation
    * ToolX output constraints
    * Calls to other existing tools in the system
What the system CANNOT use
* You may NOT assume access to:
    * Free-form LLM reasoning or semantic interpretation
    * Conversation history unless explicitly provided as structured input
    * Human judgment

When a Policy MUST Be Rejected
* Reject the policy if it cannot be enforced using the allowed mechanisms above.
* Each rejection must include a reason chosen from:
    * "api" - Already guaranteed or enforced by ToolX API schema
    * "llm" - Requires semantic reasoning or interpretation
    * "history"	- Requires prior conversation state not available here
    * "missing_tool"- Would be enforceable, but requires a tool that does not exist
    * "other" - Not an actual restriction or otherwise not enforceable

1. Reject as "api"
The API already enforces this constraint automatically.
Examples:
    * Required parameters already required
    * Enum values already restricted
    * Type or format validation already handled by schema

2. Reject as "llm"
The rule depends on interpretation, intent, tone, plausibility, or subjective judgment.
Examples:
    * “If the request sounds suspicious…”
    * “If the destination seems unrealistic…”
    * “If the user appears confused…”

3. Reject as "history"
The rule depends on prior user actions, earlier messages, or stored user state not provided in this call.
Examples:
    * “If the user already canceled twice…”
    * “If the user was previously warned…”

4. Reject as "missing_tool"
The rule is programmatically enforceable, but only if another tool existed that is not currently available.
When using this reason, you must also describe what tool is missing.
Examples:
    * Identity verification required, but no identity tool exists
    * Fraud score check required, but no fraud detection tool exists

5. Reject as "other" — No Guard Logic Produced
Reject the policy if it does not require ToolX to perform any of the following in code:
    * Validate an input parameter
    * Enforce a limit or constraint
    * Modify or compute an output value
    * Block, reject, or alter a request
    * Call another tool to verify something
If the policy only removes restrictions, grants unconditional permission, or describes a business rule without requiring system behavior, then there is no guard code to generate, and the policy must be rejected.

These policies are informational or business guidance, not enforceable validation rules.

When a Policy Can Be Kept
* Set "can_be_validated": true only if:
    * The policy can be enforced using:
        * ToolX parameters or outputs, or
        * Deterministic logic inside ToolX, or
        * Calls to other existing tools
    * No LLM reasoning or missing system components are required

If kept, "rejection_reason" must be null.

Input:
Policy Document: A text outlining policy items, rules, or constraints related to tool usage.
Tool Descriptions: A list detailing tools, their functionalities, and constraints.
Target Tool (ToolX): The tool this policy is currently assigned to
Policy: A single policy item to evaluate, including: name, description and references (verbatim excerpts from the Policy Document)

Output JSON Format:
{
  "name": "<Policy Name>",
  "description": "<Policy Description>",
  "references": [
    "<Exact Passage from Policy Document>"
  ],
  "can_be_validated": false,
  "rejection_reason": "api | llm | history | missing_tool | other | null",
  "missing_tool_description": "<Required only if rejection_reason is missing_tool>",
  "comments": "<Short explanation describing why the policy can or cannot be enforced at this stage>"
}


