Resolve the authoritative policy or decision for a given scope using a read-only policy registry. Provide scope and optional query to get canonical results.
Resolve the authoritative policy/rule/decision for a scope via the real policy-registry engine (read-only, canonical-only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Search query. | |
| scope | Yes | ||
| consumer | No | ||
| required_kind | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0-alpha.29Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is 'read-only' and 'canonical-only', which are useful safety and filtering traits, but it omits auth requirements, error behavior, and what 'resolve' actually returns.
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 single sentence is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and the parenthetical qualifiers are compact. It contains no filler, though its extreme brevity leaves much unsaid.
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?
Given four parameters, one required field, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain how to use scope, consumer, required_kind, or query, nor what a resolved result looks like.
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 only 25% (just the 'query' parameter). The description mentions 'for a scope' but adds no real meaning beyond the parameter name; 'consumer' and 'required_kind' are left completely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('authoritative policy/rule/decision for a scope'), making the tool's purpose clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling 'hb_policy_list' by indicating resolution rather than listing, but does not explicitly name that alternative.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hb_policy_list. The description only states what it does, leaving usage context entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.