get_resource_policy

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

The verb 'Retrieve' and the context 'auditing/inspecting' communicate a read-only operation, with no annotations provided. However, the description adds no detail about permissions, response shape, or behavior when no policy exists, so it only partially covers what the agent needs.

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 compact, front-loaded with the usage trigger, and every sentence contributes information. The Args line is minimal and fits the single-parameter schema.

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 simple one-parameter getter with no output schema or annotations, the description gives purpose, trigger, and parameter semantics. It lacks return-value formatting and error behavior, but these are minor for this read-only retrieval.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the 'Args: resource_arn: Key ARN' line is the only documentation of the parameter. It usefully clarifies that the ARN belongs to a key rather than a generic resource, though it stops short of specifying format or constraints.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the resource policy attached to a key.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_key (key metadata) and put_resource_policy/delete_resource_policy (mutations).

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?

It explicitly says when to call it: 'when auditing who has access to a key or inspecting a cross-account policy.' It does not name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the stated context makes the intended use clear.

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