policy_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety and behavior burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, and the second sentence explicitly frames denied tools as flag-driven rather than bypassable, including the correct remediation. It does not describe output structure, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by two high-value behavioral notes. No filler or repetition.

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 no-argument status tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states the purpose, clarifies the denied-tool semantics, and directs the agent to the correct escalation path. There is no missing information an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing is left undocumented.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('optional capabilities') and states the state being reported (which are on). This is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which cover policy/capability introspection, so an agent can identify what it does without needing the schema.

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 gives clear context: use it to see which optional capabilities are enabled, and explains the meaning of denied tools in terms of ENABLE_* flags. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use alternatives, but no sibling offers the same capability, and the instruction to ask the operator rather than bypass is a practical routing rule.

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