teramind_get_behavior_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Get full detail,' which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly disclose that it is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or response format. Since it's a simple get, the lack of extra disclosure is a minor gap; a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One concise sentence with zero waste. The purpose is stated first, followed by the prerequisite. It is front-loaded and easily parseable, making it efficient for an agent to extract key information.

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 get operation with one parameter, the description is complete. It specifies the required input and its source. There is no output schema, but for a get the return structure is often inferable; still, it does not describe what fields are returned or any error conditions, but those are not critical for calling the tool 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 schema description for the parameter 'id' already provides 100% coverage and repeats the source (from list). The tool description adds the same information, so it does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct because the schema fully covers the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get full detail for a single behavior policy.' Clearly distinguishes from the sibling list tool by emphasizing 'single' and referencing the list tool for ID sourcing. The description makes it obvious this is the per-item getter, not the list or group getter.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use: 'Requires a policy ID from teramind_list_behavior_policies.' This implies a two-step flow (list then get) and gives the prerequisite. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use, but for a simple get the context is sufficient.

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