Elements Get Source Swap Policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile, but the description adds nothing beyond that — no note on failure modes when the policy_id is unknown, no scoping or permission context. It restates the operation without enriching behavioral understanding.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — brevity here comes at the cost of useful detail. Not wasteful, but not earning its place either.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a get-by-id tool the description is missing the context an agent needs: what a policy is, how to source a policy_id, and how it relates to the list/create siblings. It is too thin given the surrounding tool surface.

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 coverage is 0% and there is exactly one parameter (policy_id) whose meaning, format, or origin is never explained in the description. For a single required id parameter with no schema documentation, the description should compensate but does not.

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 states a verb+resource ('Get a source swap policy'), so the basic action is clear, but it does nothing to distinguish this retrieval-by-id tool from its close siblings elements_list_source_swap_policies and elements_create_source_swap_policy. An agent could confuse it with the list operation 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 guidance on when to use this versus list_source_swap_policies or how a policy_id is obtained. No prerequisites, no context, no alternatives named — the agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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