brc_get_deployment_policy

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

The description is highly transparent about what the tool does (summarizes permissions), its constraints (do not expose technical details), and its audience (customer-facing). It lacks an explicit statement that it is read-only, but given its nature, this is sufficient. No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden.

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 longer than ideal but front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value by setting usage context and constraints. Could be slightly more concise, but the detail is warranted for a meta-introspection tool.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use this tool and what it returns (plain-English business responses). It outlines the summary categories and formatting rules, making it complete for its purpose.

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 are no parameters in the input schema, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information since none exist. Baseline score for no parameters is 4.

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 is an authoritative permission and output policy summary for the Red session, and explicitly lists triggers like 'asks what they can do, what tools they have, what permissions are enabled'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a meta-summary rather than an operational 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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios ('user asks what they can do, what tools they have, what permissions are enabled, or whether technical details/code should be shown') and what to avoid (do not list tool names, JSON, etc.). It also gives formatting guidance for customer-facing answers.

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