ops_policy_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Show' implies read-only access, the description does not explicitly confirm lack of side effects, required authorization levels, rate limits, or the structure of the returned policy data.

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 the verb first. The parenthetical clarification '(method policy and local audit settings)' efficiently defines 'operational guardrails' without adding unnecessary length.

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 information retrieval tool, the description adequately identifies what information is returned. However, given the absence of an output schema or annotations, it could improve by briefly indicating the return format (e.g., 'returns JSON configuration').

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 has zero input parameters and 100% schema coverage trivially. The baseline score of 4 applies as there are no parameters requiring semantic clarification beyond the schema.

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 the verb 'Show' and specifies the resource as 'operational guardrails' for 'this MCP', clarifying it retrieves the server's own method policy and audit configuration. It distinguishes from sibling ops_access_policy_info by emphasizing 'this MCP' (internal server policies) rather than external access controls.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus similar siblings like ops_access_policy_info or ops_audit_log_read. No prerequisites, triggers, or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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