get_scope_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It states what the tool returns (policy + excluded conversations) but does not mention that it is read-only, has no side effects, or requires special permissions. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second provides usage guidance. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains what is returned. It could benefit from noting the format or that the policy is a string, but for a zero-parameter tool, it is reasonably complete. A slight improvement would be to mention that no parameters are needed.

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?

There are no parameters, and the description adds value by explaining the return content beyond the schema. It clarifies that the output includes both the privacy policy text and the list of excluded conversations, which is meaningful context.

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 specifies 'Return Yomi's data-capture privacy policy plus the current list of excluded conversations' with a clear verb ('Return') and resource ('privacy policy' and 'excluded conversations'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_excluded_chats by including the policy disclosure.

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 explicitly says 'Call this to show the user' which indicates when to use it. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context with siblings makes it clear enough.

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