enterprise_policy_status

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

No annotations provided. The description implies a read-only operation ('Show') but lacks any disclosure of required permissions, side effects, or limitations (e.g., rate limits, caching). The scope 'for the caller tenant' adds some context.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no wasted words. The description is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 simple status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks information about output format or behavior (e.g., whether it returns all thresholds or active ones), which could help an agent interpret results.

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 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. The description implicitly explains this by stating it operates on the caller tenant, which eliminates the need for explicit parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 clear verb ('Show') and identifies the specific resource ('active policy pack and gate thresholds') and scope ('for the caller tenant'). It is distinct enough from sibling tools like evaluate_policy and compliance_report, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like evaluate_policy or compliance_report. The description states only the basic functionality, leaving the agent to infer its appropriate context.

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