get_policy_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: pretty-printed JSON output and, notably, that a missing policy file returns an empty/default summary rather than an error so callers can branch on counts — a non-obvious error-handling contract that usefully informs invocation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage/alternative routing and then behavioral notes. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information with no padding.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return shape (pretty-printed JSON with allow/deny counts) and the missing-file fallback, which is exactly the return-value context an agent needs. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for the single `projectPath` parameter, and the schema already documents the absolute-path semantics and the CWD default. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Return a high-level summary of the project's `.q-ring.json` governance policy') and enumerates the contents (allow/deny rule counts for tools, key reads, exec commands, approval/rotation requirements). It also names the sibling it is not ('prefer `check_policy` for a precise per-action verdict'), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('to orient an agent... before attempting policy-restricted actions') and when to prefer the alternative ('prefer `check_policy` for a precise per-action verdict'). The routing condition between summary vs. per-action verdict is fully spelled out.

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