Policy Run Detail v2

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the meaning of exit_code (raw process exit code, NTSTATUS handling) and result_status (lowercase per-device outcome). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so no contradiction. The description provides behavioral context but could mention pagination behavior.

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 very concise: two sentences for purpose and context, plus two inline explanations for key response fields. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary 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?

While the purpose is clear, the description lacks details on response format (no output schema), pagination, and parameter semantics for 6 of 8 parameters. Given the tool's complexity and number of parameters, more completeness is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description bears full burden for parameter clarity. It only partially covers parameters: mentions device_name filtering and the role of policy_uuid/exec_token as UUIDs. It does not explain sort, result_status filter, page, limit, or output_format. This is insufficient for 8 parameters.

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 gets detailed per-device results for a specific policy run. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from siblings like policy_runs_v2 (which lists runs) and policy_run_results (which may be aggregated).

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 by mentioning UUID-based queries and device name filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like policy_runs_v2 or policy_execution_counts. No context on exclusions or prerequisites is provided.

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