Policy Run Detail v2

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Get' verb aligns. However, the description adds no new behavioral traits (e.g., pagination behavior, data freshness), which would be valuable beyond the 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the core purpose with no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and resource, the second adds key filtering capabilities.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered. However, the description is minimal for an 8-parameter tool with 2 required. Critical optional parameters (pagination, sorting, result filtering) are not explained, leaving the agent to guess their usage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely references policy_uuid and exec_token via 'UUID-based queries' and device_name via 'device name filtering.' Other key parameters like sort, result_status, page, limit, output_format are unmentioned, leaving significant gaps.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'detailed per-device results for a specific policy run,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like policy_run_results (summary) or policy_runs_v2 (list runs). The mention of UUID-based queries and device name filtering further specifies its scope.

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 this tool is for getting detailed results, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. No comparison to siblings like policy_run_results is given, leaving the agent to infer context.

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