ofp_policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral detail: the return shape, the e-ledger versus canonical field naming nuance, the unevaluable payload consequence, and the meaning of published:false. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core operation and then layering necessary caveats. Each sentence carries meaningful content and no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by explaining the return format (Rego source, policies[].inputs), the field naming expectation, and the non-error published:false case. This is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 100%; the single id parameter is already described with an example ('extractives'). The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond calling it a sector, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a concrete operation ('Get a sector's policy guardrails as Rego source') and clarifies the result's role by mentioning how ofp_validate uses it. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ofp_sectors or ofp_validate.

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?

Clearly implies when to use it: when sector policy guardrails are needed. It provides important usage warnings about published:false and about not inventing guardrails, and references ofp_validate as the downstream validator. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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