get_connector_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Retrieves' but does not explicitly state it is side-effect-free. However, it adds valuable context about the limitations of related tools, which helps set expectations. A slightly more explicit disclosure of non-mutating behavior would elevate it further.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence contributes value: the first states what it does, the second gives the use case, and the third provides important limitations. No word 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It provides a clear purpose, usage guidance, and a comparison with related tools. It is complete for a retrieval tool, and the note about manual updates in Admin Console rounds out the operational context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds context by mentioning example features like 'printing sensitive data' and 'real-time URL checks', which helps interpret the enum values. This goes beyond the schema without being redundant.

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 the specific verb 'Retrieves' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the current configuration for a specific Chrome Enterprise connector or all connectors'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'enable_chrome_enterprise_connectors' tool by focusing on retrieval/audit rather than activation.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to AUDIT or VERIFY settings'. It also provides clear guidance on alternatives: the enable tool can only activate unconfigured connectors, and there is no tool to modify configured connectors. This is explicit and actionable.

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