policy_status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the server is read-only by design, that no posting/commenting/voting code exists, that mode only changes via user editing config.yaml, and that a scheduled mode change may be pending. These are concrete behavioral constraints that materially affect how an agent should reason about policy results.

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 front-loaded with the core content and usage indication, followed by the read-only constraint and policy guidance. Every sentence adds useful context; none is filler or redundant with the annotations.

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 zero-parameter read-only policy tool with an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool reports, when to consult it, and the behavioral/ethical guardrails applicable to using the policy information. Nothing needed for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no burden. The description compensates by explaining what the status output covers and how to interpret the policy snapshot, adding meaning beyond the empty input schema.

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?

States a specific verb-resource pairing and enumerates exactly what the tool reports: promotion mode, denied subreddits, per-subreddit roles, scoring weights, and scheduled mode changes. It also gives an explicit use case, reading this when unsure whether something is allowed, which clearly differentiates it from the Reddit action and product profile siblings.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to invoke this tool: 'Read this when you are unsure whether something is allowed.' It also clarifies that this server cannot perform Reddit actions, so an agent should not expect to take action through this or related tools. This contrasts cleanly with sibling tools that do Reddit operations.

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