Get Project IAM Policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm non-modification, required permissions, or what the returned policy contains. It is adequate for a simple get operation but leaves important context unstated.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 low complexity and full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable for calling the tool. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent gets no information about the return shape, potential side effects, or how to interpret the policy response beyond what the name itself implies.

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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond the high-level 'Google Cloud project' framing. It does not explain behavior around requestedPolicyVersion or defaults beyond what the schema provides.

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 the specific verb 'Retrieve' and names the exact resource: 'IAM policy for a Google Cloud project'. It clearly identifies what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like gcp-iam-test-project-permissions, so it misses the full differentiation that would earn a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related IAM permission-testing and analysis tools. The description simply states the operation without indicating when it is the right choice or when a sibling should be preferred.

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