Policy Runs for Policy

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent. The description adds critical context that device_outcomes are counts per outcome, not run statuses, preventing misinterpretation. No contradictions.

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 with no filler. Key information is front-loaded: action, resource, and a specific clarification about output data.

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 lacking output schema, the description provides a useful clarification. However, it fails to cover most parameters and their meanings, which is necessary given the 0% schema coverage and moderate complexity (5 params).

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It only mentions report_days and sort by implication, ignoring summary_only and output_format. Users get minimal guidance on 3 out of 5 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 execution runs for a specific policy by UUID, with optional filters. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the focus on a single policy and clarifying the meaning of device_outcomes.

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 mentions optional filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like policy_runs_v2 or policy_runs_by_policy. It implies usage for a specific policy but lacks exclusion cues.

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