cyberqp_get_jit_policies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable guarantee: 'Policy configuration only - never returns credential material,' which prevents an agent from expecting secrets. However, it doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, or error behavior. For a read-only getter this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the credential-material warning adds meaningful value in the second sentence. It is efficient, though it could use structure to clarify alternatives; as conciseness, it's effective.

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 two-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose. However, the sibling confusion risk is significant: multiple JIT tools exist in the same family, and the description doesn't clarify how policy retrieval differs from status checks or existence checks. That gap leaves an agent without enough context to reliably choose this tool.

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 100%: both customerId and accountType have descriptions, and accountType has an enum limiting values. The description echoes 'customer + account type' but adds no extra syntax, format, or default details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema documents both parameters well.

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 clear action and resource: 'Get the configured JIT policy (approval requirements, max session duration) for a customer + account type.' The parenthetical adds specificity about what the policy contains. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like cyberqp_get_customer_jit_status, but the resource detail is specific enough to convey the tool's purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes several JIT-related tools (cyberqp_get_customer_jit_status, cyberqp_get_tenant_jit_status, cyberqp_check_jit_account_exists), but the description never mentions them or states when to prefer this one. An agent could easily confuse this with a status or existence check.

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