policy_view

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating call, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the substantive content of the response (allow/deny policy and digest pins), which is genuine added context. It says nothing about permissions, freshness, or whether pins are scoped per model, so it stays at a baseline 3.

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?

A single sentence with the read-only marker front-loaded and no filler. The '[READ]' tag is slightly redundant against readOnlyHint, but it is a cheap, useful scannable prefix and the sentence is appropriately sized for a zero-arg tool.

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?

With no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so only in compressed form ('provenance digest pins'). It is enough for an agent to decide to call it, but thin on what the payload actually looks like or whether pins are per-model or global.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no redundant parameter talk.

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 names a concrete resource and its contents: the current model allow/deny policy plus provenance digest pins. That is far more specific than the bare name policy_view and tells the agent exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as model_provenance, which partially overlaps on the provenance aspect.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the write-side siblings (set_model_allowlist, set_model_denylist, pin_model_digest) or versus model_provenance. The '[READ]' prefix hints at the read-only role but gives no condition or context for selecting it. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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