cookieguard_policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description nonetheless adds the meaningful fact that the configuration is maintainer-controlled and cannot be mutated through this tool, which preempts an agent trying to write settings here. It also enumerates the returned fields, which matters because no output schema exists.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first front-loads what is returned, the second immediately kills the mutation expectation. Nothing is repeated from the annotations or schema in a wasteful way.

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 zero-argument read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece by naming the four returned configuration fields. It stops short of describing the response shape (nesting, types) or failure modes, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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; the schema baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly makes no parameter claims that would conflict with the empty, additionalProperties=false 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?

States a specific verb ("Read") and enumerates the exact configuration it returns: maintainer-configured origins, cookie policy, timeout, and HTTP-only scope. It is clearly distinct from scanner-style siblings like cookieguard_scan or cookieguard_audit, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the way to inspect current configuration before or instead of scanning. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to cookieguard_capabilities or cookieguard_explain, so the agent must infer the boundary between this and the config-adjacent siblings.

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