Retrieve a policy decision by its ID to inspect details or verify outcomes. Use when you need the exact decision record for auditing or troubleshooting.
Returns a policy decision by id. Find a specific policy decision based on the input policy decision id. GET /policy/api/policyDecisions/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Policy decision Id (path) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the raw endpoint path (GET /policy/api/policyDecisions/{id}); it says nothing about not-found behavior, what a decision record contains, or any auth/scope requirements beyond what openWorldHint already implies.
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?
Three lines in which sentence two ('Find a specific policy decision based on the input policy decision id') is a near-verbatim restatement of sentence one. The endpoint path earns its place; the middle sentence does not.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the definition is minimally sufficient, but with no output schema the agent gets zero indication of what a decision object looks like or how to interpret a miss.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as a UUID path parameter, so the schema carries the weight. The description merely restates that the id identifies a policy decision, adding no format, sourcing, or lookup-path guidance 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Returns a policy decision by id') that an agent can act on immediately. It does not distinguish itself from the obvious sibling policy_get_decisions (the list counterpart), so the boundary between 'one' and 'many' is left implicit.
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?
'Find a specific policy decision based on the input policy decision id' implies the precondition (you already hold an id), but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named, despite policy_get_decisions existing as a direct sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.