get-operator-policy

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

The description and annotations are consistent (readOnlyHint=true). However, the description adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, such as authentication needs or return behavior limitations.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and 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?

The description is insufficient given the lack of output schema and the presence of many sibling tools. It does not explain what is returned (the policy details) or differentiate from get-policy (for regular policies). The openWorldHint annotation suggests unknown fields, but the description does not address this.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not elaborate on the parameters. The names 'vhost' and 'name' are self-explanatory, but the description could clarify the expected format or constraints for 'name' (e.g., which operator policy names are valid).

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 the action ('Get'), the resource ('operator policy'), and the scope ('for a vhost'). It effectively distinguishes from list tools (multiple) and mutation tools (put/delete).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list-operator-policies or list-operator-policies-vhost. The usage is implied from the context of needing a specific policy, but the description does not provide when-not or alternative advice.

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