dcs_policy

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read, so the "[READ]" tag and "Read" verb repeat structured data rather than adding to it. Nothing is said about errors for an unknown policy_id, required permissions, or what a policy record looks like, which is the extra context the description should supply for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Five words, front-loaded with the action and the scope, with no wasted phrasing. It is terse rather than padded, though the terseness comes at the cost of the missing semantics noted above.

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 single-record read the annotations cover safety, but with no output schema and a fully undocumented parameter the agent still cannot tell what an ID looks like or what the returned policy contains. The definition is under-specified relative to even this low-complexity tool.

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%, so the single policy_id parameter is undocumented everywhere. The description does not say what a policy ID is, where to obtain one (e.g., from dcs_policies), or whether it is the numeric policy identifier.

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 gives a specific verb ("Read") and a specific resource ("one DCS policy"), and the singular "one" implicitly distinguishes it from the list sibling dcs_policies. What a DCS policy actually contains is never stated, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus dcs_policies or the related dcs_policy_violations / dcs_policy_settings siblings. The singular reading is only inferable from the name and the word "one".

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