jumpcloud_tenant_policy_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states the tool is 'Read-only' and notes 'Risk: medium,' providing some behavioral context. However, the risk level is vague and there is no explanation of permissions, failure modes, or what 'effective' policies entail, limiting transparency.

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 succinct, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value: purpose, usage context, and risk level. There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 has no output schema, so the description should indicate what the tool returns, but it only says 'inspect effective policy guardrails' without specifying the return format. Additionally, the optional parameters are underspecified, and the vague risk note does not fill the gap. The description is not complete enough for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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% and the description only partially compensates. It mentions 'tenant/user policy reader' and 'for a scope,' implying the userId and tenantId parameters relate to user and tenant scopes, but it does not clarify whether they are optional, mutually exclusive, or how they interact. This leaves the agent uncertain about how to construct a valid call.

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 the tool is a 'Read-only tenant/user policy reader' used to 'inspect effective policy guardrails for a scope.' It identifies the specific resource and action, and the 'Read-only' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling 'jumpcloud_tenant_policy_set' tool.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Use to inspect effective policy guardrails for a scope'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The presence of a sibling set tool implies the distinction, but the description could be more explicit about exclusions.

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