policy_view

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says '[READ]' and lists the content, but does not mention error conditions, caching behavior, or permission requirements. 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 with a clear '[READ]' prefix. It is concise and front-loaded, but could benefit from slightly more structure, such as listing the two components separately.

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 simple read tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential content (policy and pins). However, it lacks any hint of the response format or potential limitations, which slightly reduces completeness.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details.

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 it reads the current allow/deny policy and provenance digest pins. '[READ]' marks it as read-only, and the specific resource names distinguish it from sibling write tools like set_model_allowlist and pin_model_digest.

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 implies use for viewing current policy and pins, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_models or set_model_allowlist. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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