ilm_policy_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'get' operation which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when no policy_id is provided. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. It uses minimal space effectively, though the formatting with extra whitespace could be cleaner. Every sentence serves a 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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the ILM policies are returned in, whether there's pagination for multiple policies, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The minimal description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining that 'policy_id' is optional and that omitting it returns all policies. This clarifies the parameter's behavior beyond what the schema provides. However, it doesn't explain the format or constraints of policy_id values.

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 '获取 ILM 策略' (Get ILM policy) which clearly indicates the verb (get) and resource (ILM policy). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'ilm_policy_create' or 'ilm_policy_delete' beyond the basic action. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when to use it over other ILM tools like 'ilm_policy_create', or any contextual limitations. It simply documents the parameter behavior without usage context.

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