What release policy does this repo enforce?

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns structured data, error handling (typed ConfigError instead of nonzero exit), and explicitly states it does NOT run validation. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect from the call.

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 well-structured: it opens with the main purpose, then details what the policy includes, explains the return behavior and error handling, and closes with what it does NOT do and the alternatives. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant or filler content. The most critical info (purpose and when to use) is front-loaded.

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 read-only config reader with zero parameters and an output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers the purpose, the scope of the policy, error behavior, and what it does not do, and provides routing guidance to sibling tools. The output schema presumably documents the return structure, so no further return-value details are needed.

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, and the schema is an empty object with no properties. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. It does add context about the output being structured data, but that's not parameter-related, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 states the specific verb 'Read' and the resource 'resolved [tool.rrt] policy', enumerating the key contents (version targets, pin targets, changelog file, release branch pattern, folder rules). It clearly distinguishes itself from validation tools by explicitly noting it does not run per-target checks, which separates it from siblings like rrt_release_check, rrt_folder_check, and rrt_docs_check.

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?

It gives an explicit 'when to use' directive: 'Call this before proposing any release-related change' so the agent acts on configured policy. It also states when not to use it (for validation) and names the alternative tools (rrt_release_check, rrt_folder_check, rrt_docs_check) that should be used for those checks, leaving no ambiguity about routing.

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