Policy Run Results

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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, idempotent, read-only operation. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of the output fields: `exit_code` (including a note about NTSTATUS codes on Windows) and `result_status`. This helps the agent interpret results correctly, though it does not disclose other behavioral details like error handling or data freshness.

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 consists of two sentences, with the primary action stated first and technical details provided in the second sentence. It is well-structured, efficient, and avoids redundancy.

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?

Given 9 input parameters, none are described in the schema, and the description only explains the two required ones implicitly. No details on optional parameters, pagination, or filtering logic. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but input parameter information is critically lacking.

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 the full burden of explaining parameters, but it only indirectly mentions `policy_uuid` and `exec_token` via the phrase 'specific policy execution token'. No details are provided about optional parameters like `sort`, `result_status`, `device_name`, `page`, `limit`, `max_output_length`, leaving the agent with no guidance on their meaning or usage.

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 starts with 'Retrieve per-device results and output for a specific policy execution token', which clearly states the action (retrieve) and resource (per-device policy run results). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like policy_runs_v2 which likely return aggregated data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative policy run tools. It does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection, leaving the agent to infer from the 'per-device' qualifier.

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