Policy Runs v2

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

The description discloses critical behavioral details: device_outcomes are device counts per outcome, not run statuses, and result_status matches any device with that outcome (single-device semantics). This adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or total result counts.

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 a single cohesive paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and then clarifies key semantics. It is efficient but could benefit from bullet points or separate sections for clarity.

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 the 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core filtering but lacks details on pagination, output format, and the response structure. It explains result_status well but leaves other parameters undocumented.

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 coverage, the description must compensate. It explains semantics for result_status and implies time-range and policy filtering. But it omits descriptions for policy_uuid, sort, page, limit, and output_format, leaving significant gaps despite the detailed result_status logic.

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 it lists policy runs with time-range, policy name/type, and result status filtering. It distinguishes itself from the standard policy execution timeline by referencing the Policy History v2 API for richer data, providing a specific verb and resource.

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 preference over the standard timeline for richer data but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like policy_execution_timeline or policy_run_detail_v2. No when-not or explicit comparisons are provided.

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