policy_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and explains that policy limits are set by the user, not the agent. This adds context beyond the annotation, clarifying that the agent cannot modify limits and that the tool only reads. The description also discloses the specific types of data returned, which is helpful for setting expectations.

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 three sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second explains what it shows, and the third clarifies read-only behavior and who sets limits. No wasted words.

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-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content (caps and remaining budget). The read-only nature and user-controlled limits are also covered. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter (includeRecentSpends) with its meaning and default. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('current treasury policy limits and spend totals'). It further details the specific output (per-transaction, hourly, daily caps, budget remaining), making it distinct from any sibling tool, none of which relate to treasury policy.

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 usage for checking treasury policy and remaining budget, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions that policy limits are user-set, which is more of a behavioral caveat than usage guidance. No alternatives are referenced, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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