policy_show

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Show' signals a read operation and the enumerated fields partly substitute for a missing output schema, but nothing is said about who may call it (policy data is often privileged), whether results are scoped to the caller's environment, or whether values are computed 'effective' tiers vs raw config.

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 the scope front-loaded and zero filler; every listed item corresponds to a category of information the caller receives.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool the enumerated field list does real work in describing the return payload. What is missing is authorization/scope context — whether admin rights are required and whose policy is being shown — which matters materially for a policy tool.

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, so there is no schema semantics to compensate for; baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter guidance because none is needed.

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?

Specific verb 'Show' paired with a concrete enumeration of the returned policy artifacts (tier floors, effective tiers, kill switches, masking rules). An agent immediately knows this is a read-only policy introspection tool, and it is obviously distinct from the record/merge/reply siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'in force' implies reading current/live configuration rather than historical or proposed policy, which is useful implied context. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus other tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions — usage must be inferred from the one-liner.

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