rls_get_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that this is a read operation ('Return') and specifies the exact content returned (USING and WITH CHECK code). However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if policy not found), permission requirements, or side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently states the tool's purpose and the key detail about the return content.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no annotations and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description leaves gaps: it does not explain why schema/table parameters are needed or what happens on error. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still lacks important context for an agent to confidently invoke the 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 schema has three required parameters (schema_name, table_name, policy_name) with zero description coverage. The description only mentions 'by name', failing to explain that schema_name and table_name are needed to scope the policy. It does not add meaning beyond the bare parameter names, so it does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('definition ... of an RLS policy'), including the exact components (USING and WITH CHECK code). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rls_list_policies by specifying that it retrieves a single policy by name.

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 'by name' implies the tool is for retrieving a specific policy rather than listing all, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, when to use this versus other RLS tools, or any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage guidance is implied but not fully articulated.

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