security_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the content domains (policy mode, disabled tools, change procedure, output folder rules), which is useful, but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, side effects, or permissions. Its query-only, zero-parameter nature limits the risk, keeping this at a middling score rather than low.

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?

A single dense sentence with a parenthetical enumerating the covered topics; front-loaded and free of filler. Slightly long but every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description adequately covers the two subject areas (security policy and output folder rules) for a no-argument informational tool. Only the omission of read-only/side-effect context keeps it from a 5.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add or explain. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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 names a clear resource (effective network/internet policy and output folder rules) and enumerates the specifics it covers (local-only vs network mode, disabled tools, how to change it). It is distinguishable from most siblings, though the verb is implicit (it reports/describes rather than stating an action).

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus siblings such as set_output_folder, describe_tool, or list_tools. The content enumeration hints at usage but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.

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