get_send_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does declare the key behavioral traits: it is read-only, and credentials are deliberately withheld from the response. It still omits what the safeguards payload actually contains and any failure/auth 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?

Two brief sentences with zero filler; the identity of what is returned is front-loaded and the safety qualifier follows instantly. Every clause 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?

For a no-argument, read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does and its safety profile. A sentence sketching the shape of the returned safeguards would make it fully self-sufficient, but the gap is small.

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 and the schema is fully self-describing, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter information is needed or missing.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('active local sending safeguards'), which is clearly distinct from sibling mutators like send_email, queue_email_for_approval, or preview_send. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with any sibling or clarify how it differs from a preview/gating check.

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 phrase 'active local sending safeguards' implies the agent consults this before or around sending decisions, but no when-to-use condition, prerequisite, or alternative (e.g., preview_send vs. queue_email_for_approval) is stated. Usage is inferable only from context.

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