compliance_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false, so the description is not burdened with the safety profile. It still adds real value by disclosing the key behavioral trait beyond annotations: the tool performs no Brightspace request, i.e. it reads local configuration only, and it names the policy dimensions returned.

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 sentences, zero filler. The reported fields are front-loaded in a compact enumeration, and the distinguishing constraint ('no Brightspace request') is placed last as a clean closing point.

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?

An output schema exists and the tool has no inputs, so the description does not need to document return structure or argument syntax. It still previews the returned policy dimensions, which is more than the minimum required for an agent to decide to call it.

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; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. Nothing in the description misrepresents the (empty) input contract.

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 specific verb (Show) and resource (Purdue policy settings in force), then enumerates exactly what is reported: AI data tier, enabled tools, courses with AI permission, request limits, and implementing policies. The closing note 'Makes no Brightspace request' separates it from every sibling, which all fetch Brightspace data.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the diagnostic/configuration view to consult instead of a Brightspace API call, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use clause. Given that it is the only non-Brightspace sibling, the lack of explicit routing guidance is a minor gap rather than a harmful one.

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