get_authority

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add useful semantics: naming a code grants nothing, only a promoted code may direct a posting, and approvals are re-checked against the policy in force. However, it does not state read-only behavior, permission requirements, or edge-case behavior.

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?

Three sentences, all contributing meaningful domain context, with the core subject front-loaded in the first sentence. It is somewhat dense but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be spelled out, and the description covers non-obvious domain rules. Still, it lacks explicit usage guidance, operational side-effect or permission notes, making it only moderately complete for an unannotated 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?

The single 'loop' parameter is only implicitly described as the loop whose authority is being inspected. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by indicating that the parameter identifies a loop, but it omits format, accepted values, and any relation to loop identifiers from sibling tools.

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 identifies the resource as 'policy, vocabulary and promoted rules governing a loop' plus signer information, and the tool name supplies the 'get' verb. It is clear about the subject but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_proof or get_contracts.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_proof, get_close, or get_worklist. The description provides domain context but no conditions, prerequisites, or explicit exclusions.

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