read_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns the current draft and version, which is key behavioral info. However, it omits details like idempotency, error handling, or authentication, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 concise sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and then adds a practical usage hint, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the intended purpose and return content adequately. It could mention potential errors or output format, but the context of a read-tool with sibling variety does not demand more.

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?

There is only one parameter 'id' with schema coverage at 100%. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema's 'The policy's id.' The usage guidance is orthogonal to the parameter itself, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Read one policy by id' and specifies what is included (current draft and version). It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_policy_published' and 'read_policy_version' by emphasizing the inclusion of draft, which is unique to this tool.

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 explicitly advises 'Read before you update — you need the current version,' providing a clear when-to-use recommendation. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives, but the context and sibling names hint at other read variants, offering adequate guidance.

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