brc_get_deployment_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or any operational behavior. The focus is on content style rather than tool 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?

The description is relatively long but well-structured with clear directives. It front-loads the core purpose and uses imperative sentences ('Use when...', 'Summarise only...', 'Do not list...'). It could be slightly more concise, but it earns its length by providing comprehensive guidance.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns and its constraints. It specifies the scope of the summary (reading, creating, deleting, technical output) and provides limitations on content style, making it complete for its context.

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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, the description cannot add parameter semantics beyond what is inferable. A score of 4 is appropriate as the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 it is an 'Authoritative customer-facing permission and output policy summary for this Red session,' specifying a distinct verb-resource relationship. It differentiates from sibling CRUD tools by its focus on policy summarization rather than data operations.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (e.g., 'when the user asks what they can do, what tools they have, what permissions are enabled') and what not to do (e.g., 'Do not list MCP tool names...'). It provides clear context and exclusions.

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