policy_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by stating it reports *whether* the file exists as well as its contents, signalling that an absent policy is an expected, non-error outcome — useful behavior beyond the structured fields.

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?

A single sentence with the existence check front-loaded and the content types parenthesized after it. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs to be re-read.

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?

With no parameters, rich annotations and an output schema, the description only needs to establish scope, which it does. Minor gap: it doesn't say where the policy file lives or what format the policy is expressed in, but the output schema can reasonably carry that.

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 parameterless tool applies. No semantic gaps exist on this dimension.

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 a specific resource ('operator policy file') and enumerates exactly what is surfaced: allow/deny lists, command deny patterns, web_fetch domain allow-list. No sibling tool touches policy state, so the tool is implicitly unambiguous, though it never explicitly names that distinction.

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 explains what is returned but not when to call it — no mention of checking policy before running commands, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The read-only framing implies an inspection use, but nothing steers the agent between this and, say, get_capability_help or validate_server_configuration.

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