Delimit Gov Policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavior beyond those: read-only side effects on policy storage, license gating via require_premium, and the exact unlicensed-call response shape including an upgrade link. This is the kind of contextual behavior an agent needs to predict outcomes.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses structured labeled sections for when-to-use, when-not-to-use, side effects, and prerequisites, making it highly scannable. There is minor redundancy between the side-effects note about an unlicensed license payload and the prerequisite section repeating the unlicensed-call behavior, but overall the content is tight and purposeful.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers everything needed: purpose, selection criteria, sibling differentiation, side effects, and licensing behavior. The presence of an output schema means return-value details need not be repeated in the description, so nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter repo is clearly documented with a default value and description. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. No additional semantic detail is required, but none is provided either.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Read the active governance policy for a repository (Pro).' It names the exact resource (governance policy) and the verb (read), and immediately distinguishes itself from delimit_gov_evaluate, which runs an action against the policy rather than returning the policy itself.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections tell the agent exactly when to invoke this tool and when to avoid it. The sibling contrast with delimit_gov_evaluate provides a concrete alternative and differentiates the two tools, so an agent can select the correct one without guesswork.

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