get_policy_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Inspect' conveys a read-only operation and 'for the caller tenant' sets the scope, which is useful. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, side effects, or the impact of supplying tenant_id.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the operation and lists the inspected attributes without wasted words. The structure is highly scannable for an agent.

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 output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented optional parameter. The description tells what is inspected but omits tenant_id semantics, usage context, and any behavioral caveats, leaving the agent to guess for correct invocation.

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?

There is one optional nullable tenant_id parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains how to use it. It mentions 'caller tenant' but does not clarify whether tenant_id changes the target tenant, what null means, or whether cross-tenant inspection is possible.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') with a precise resource: the effective governance backend, revision, budgets, approval threshold, and rule ids. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_policy_decisions or get_audit_events.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_policy_decisions. The description implies a status inspection use case, but it never states conditions, exclusions, or preferred alternatives.

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