policy_show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: this is a prerequisite check whose result constrains what changes are permissible, which an agent cannot infer from the 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the subject scope front-loaded and the usage instruction second. Nothing repeats the title or wastes a clause.

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 no parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the only real job is purpose plus timing, and both are delivered. Minor gap: it does not clarify whether the output is the enforced policy versus the editable policy definition, which matters before planning a change.

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 and the baseline is 4. The enumerated policy categories describe the returned content rather than arguments.

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 names the resource and its contents concretely (mode, interfaces, networks, limits) and frames it as a read of enforced policy, which separates it from operational siblings like system_status or interfaces. It never states a verb such as 'returns' or 'shows the current policy', so the read nature comes from the name and annotations rather than the prose.

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?

'Read this before planning a change so you know the limits' gives a clear, explicit precondition for calling it. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when not to call it, but with an all-read sibling set the context is sufficient.

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