venom_policy_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context about first-install behavior (deterministic starting draft) and that the payload includes findings and rules, but does not disclose read-only vs mutating semantics, permissions, or rate limits. Has an output schema, so return structure need not be described.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's purpose in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args block. No filler, though the multi-line prose is slightly dense for a two-parameter read.

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 context-fetch tool with an output schema, the description covers what is returned and both parameters. It lacks explicit usage routing among siblings, which given the many similarly named policy tools is the main remaining gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it glosses both parameters ('agent id, name or key' and 'Venom workspace folder'), adding accepted formats beyond the bare schema types. It stops short of an example value or default behavior for workspace.

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?

States a clear purpose: retrieve everything needed to draft or revise a policy for one agent, enumerating the contents (active policy, findings, vocabulary drift, valid-draft rules). This is more specific than a name restatement, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like explain_policy or scaffold_policy.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Everything needed to draft or revise a policy' and the notion of a deterministic starting draft on first install. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., scaffold_policy, explain_policy, verify_policy) and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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