get-policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It successfully conveys a read-only lookup operation via 'Returns' and specifies exactly which policy facets are included. It does not discuss error behavior for unknown tool names, but for a simple query tool this is adequate and not misleading.

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 two-sentence description is compact and front-loads the core purpose. The parenthetical 'Verified. Not claimed.' adds little semantic value and may be confusing, but it does not severely harm conciseness.

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 description is complete enough for a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter: it explains what is returned and both call forms. There is no output schema, so the enumeration of returned fields is valuable and mostly sufficient, though error conditions and the meaning of the slogan are not addressed.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by defining the optional 'tool' parameter: passing it selects one tool's policy, while omitting it returns the entire registry. This gives an agent complete semantic meaning beyond the bare string property in 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 a specific verb, 'Returns', and names the resource: the effective sandbox policy for Cell tools. It enumerates the contents (fuel budget, memory limit, threads, preopens, network policy, security baseline), making it immediately clear what this tool does and distinguishing it from siblings like clock and echo.

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 description clearly states the two invocation modes: pass a tool name for one tool or no arguments for the whole registry. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to use this tool.

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