policy_show

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses a behavioral trait — that public keys are shown as fingerprints only (privacy posture) — and that config paths are included. However, it does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects or describe output format, leaving gaps a no-annotation tool should fill.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resources. The trailing fragment 'The written scope the gate enforces' is slightly terse but adds framing rather than waste.

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?

A zero-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations; the description sufficiently enumerates the returned content categories so an agent knows what to expect. Only the read-only nature and rough return structure remain implicit.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description appropriately focuses on what is returned rather than inputs.

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 specific verb (Show) and enumerates the concrete resources returned: verification policies, trust bundle public keys, and config paths. It is distinguishable from siblings like verify_image (an action) and receipt_list (receipt listing), though it doesn't explicitly reference them.

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 written scope the gate enforces' hints at context but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the introspection tool for inspecting the active policy.

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