guardentry_get_agent_policy

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

Without annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the important behavior that a default policy is returned when no explicit policy exists, adding value beyond the tool's name. It does not detail error cases, but 'retrieve' implies non-mutating behavior.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the additional sentence explains a key edge case, making it both concise and informative.

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 simple nature of the tool and full schema coverage, the description adequately explains the core purpose and behavior. It does not explicitly state that at least one of agent_id or agent_type is needed, but that is implied by the schema descriptions and acceptable for a low-complexity retrieval tool.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptive text, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retrieve the effective policy for an agent' with a specific verb and resource, and it explains the behavior when no explicit policy exists. This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like update_policy and confirm_policy by focusing on retrieval.

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 clear context: use this tool to get an agent's effective policy, including inferred defaults. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough to imply appropriate usage.

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