Policy Execution Timeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds important behavioral context: it clarifies that device_outcomes are aggregated counts, not run statuses, and explains how to interpret runs with no successes/failures. This goes beyond annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose. The second sentence adds necessary clarifying detail without excess. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains only the output interpretation for device_outcomes. It omits any parameter documentation (4 parameters, 1 required) and does not describe the overall structure of the response. Important usage context 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?

The input schema has 4 parameters (policy_uuid, org_uuid, report_days, limit) with 0% documentation coverage. The description does not explain any parameter semantics, purpose, or constraints, leaving the agent without critical information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool reviews recent executions for a policy, which is a clear verb+resource. It adds nuance about device_outcomes being counts per outcome, not run statuses, partially distinguishing it from sibling tools like policy_run_detail_v2, but does not explicitly differentiate from all related tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions. The description only explains output interpretation, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and siblings.

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