reins_policy

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds content-level context (the policy covers actions, bounds, and limits), but says nothing about the return shape, freshness, or scope of the policy, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 tight phrase with no filler — every word earns its place and it is front-loaded. It loses a point for being a fragment rather than a complete, structured statement of purpose.

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?

With zero params, no output schema, and read-only annotation, the definition is close to sufficient, but the description should clarify the return format and meaning of 'bounds/limits' since no schema documents the output. It is adequate but leaves interpretation gaps.

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. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter semantics are missing or contradicted.

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 phrase names the resource (this robot's policy) and its contents (actions, bounds, limits), which is more than a tautology. However it is a noun fragment with no verb — it never says what the tool actually does (retrieve/read the policy) — so an agent cannot cleanly distinguish it from reins_status or reins_renew without opening the schema.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. Siblings like reins_status and reins_stop exist but are never mentioned or contrasted, leaving the agent to guess which reins_* tool answers a policy question.

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