Workspace security policy: session lifetime, API key age, data retention

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by naming the returned fields (session lifetime, API key age, data retention), which stands in for the missing output schema, but it says nothing about workspace scoping, required auth level, or whether it returns defaults when no policy is set.

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?

A single front-loaded phrase with no filler; the resource and returned fields come first and the endpoint path trails as supporting detail. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but nothing is wasted.

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 parameterless single-endpoint GET with no output schema, the description does the minimum useful work by disclosing the three returned fields. It is still missing workspace scoping and authentication expectations, which matter for an openWorldHint 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; per the baseline for a 0-param schema this scores 4. The field list in the description is about return values rather than inputs, so it neither helps nor hurts here.

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 names the resource (workspace security policy) and enumerates the three fields it exposes, plus the underlying endpoint GET /v1/security/policy, which unambiguously signals a read operation. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling security_setPolicy, so the read-vs-write split must be inferred from the HTTP verb in parentheses.

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 statement of when to call this versus security_setPolicy (to modify the policy) or security_verifyAudit (to check compliance). The only usage signal is the embedded GET verb, which an agent must interpret on its own; no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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