get_connector_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates the tool is read-only (retrieves configuration) and provides context on what is retrieved. It does not explicitly mention side effects, but retrieval operations typically have none. The note about the enable tool adds behavioral context. A score of 4 reflects slight room for improvement (e.g., stating 'This tool does not change any settings').

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 concise with three sentences: first states the action, second gives use cases, third (note) provides important constraints and alternatives. Every sentence adds value, and the critical information is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, 1 required, output schema exists), the description covers the main purpose and usage context. It mentions the connection to the enable tool and manual updates for modifications. However, it does not describe the output format or any error conditions, though the output schema covers return values. Slightly more context on expected response would round it out.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The tool description adds value by explaining the purpose of retrieving connectors and giving examples of features like 'printing sensitive data' and 'real-time URL checks'. It clarifies that 'ALL' retrieves all connectors in one call, which is not obvious from enum values alone. This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool retrieves current configuration for a specific or all Chrome Enterprise connectors. It explicitly lists use cases (audit/verify) and the domain of features (printing sensitive data, real-time URL checks, event reporting). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools that create rules or enable connectors.

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 explicit guidance: use for auditing/verifying settings, notes that the 'enable_chrome_enterprise_connectors' sibling tool only activates unconfigured connectors, and clarifies that there is no tool for modifying already configured connectors (must be updated manually). This covers when to use, when not to use, and alternatives.

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