slm_policy_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation ('获取'), which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when no matching policies are found. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool 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 brief and structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical information about the tool's behavior and usage context. The two-sentence format is efficient but could be more comprehensive.

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, no output schema, and minimal sibling differentiation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the policy information is returned in, how to interpret results, or how this tool relates to other SLM policy operations in the sibling tool list.

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 description adds valuable semantic information about the single parameter: it explains that 'name' is optional and supports wildcards like 'daily*'. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this significantly compensates for the schema's lack of documentation, though it doesn't explain what happens when the parameter is omitted.

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 the verb '获取' (get) and resource '快照生命周期策略' (snapshot lifecycle policy), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'slm_policy_explain' or 'slm_policy_create', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 are multiple related tools (slm_policy_explain, slm_policy_create, slm_policy_delete, etc.) but no indication of when this retrieval tool is appropriate versus those other operations.

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