get_script_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Return' suggests a read-only operation, and the explicit 'without exposing script source or credentials' is a useful security guarantee. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, failure modes, or whether the call has any side effects, leaving some behavioral transparency gaps.

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 a single front-loaded sentence: the verb and resource come first, and the security exclusion is a concise, valuable addition. There is no redundant wording, and every part earns its place.

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 annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema, but the description still leaves important gaps: what command_id selects, whether omiting it returns a default policy, and how idempotency_key should be used. The overall shape is understandable, but not complete enough for an agent to call it with confidence.

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 does not mention either paramter. An agent cannot tell from the description what command_id refers to or how idempotency_key affects the call, so the description adds no meaning beyond the bare paramter names 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 states a specific action, 'Return', and a precise resource, 'current execute/reload policy', so the tool's purpose is immediately clear. The qualifier 'without exposing script source or credentials' also distinguishes it from script execution and audit-log siblings like execute_script and get_script_audit_log.

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 phrase 'execute/reload policy' implies the tool is relevant before executing or reloading scripts, but the description never explicitly states when to use it or names alternatives. There is no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the implied connection to execute_script and reload_script.

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