get_policy_gate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the response format (policy object or null), mentions SDK local evaluation, and gives behavioral context. It lacks disclosure of authentication needs or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter read operation this is adequate.

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 appropriately sized with each sentence adding value: purpose, response shape, SDK context, example queries. It could be slightly more concise but is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the return value and usage context. It includes example phrasings and mentions the relationship to SDK configuration, making it complete for a simple getter 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 has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since schema coverage is 100% (vacuously).

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 clearly states 'Get the runtime policy gate settings', using a specific verb (get) and resource (policy gate). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_policy_gate, update_policy_gate, and delete_policy_gate by focusing on reading configuration.

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 provides example phrasing ('what model restrictions are active right now?', 'is PII blocking enabled?') that tells the agent when to use this tool. It mentions runtime control plane context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though the sibling list implies other actions.

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