get_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 handles it well: it explicitly declares 'Read-only (class A per D99.V); does not run checks or mutate state' and discloses the defaults-application behavior ('Applies M C defaults (D57) before returning'). This adds safety and resolution context beyond any structured annotation.

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 tight sentences with zero waste: first sentence states the verb+resource+contents, second explains the resolution behavior, third covers the safety profile. Each sentence earns its place; the description is front-loaded with purpose and contains no redundant filler.

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 zero-param, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it lists the return content, the defaults-resolution behavior, and the safety profile. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the exact output structure/format of the returned policy slice, but for this simple tool the component list suffices.

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 has zero parameters, so the rubric baseline is 4. The description compensates by describing the return-value content (the policy components), which gives the agent a clear picture of what it will receive even without an output 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Return the project's resolved policy slice from .viberevert.yml') and enumerates the exact contents (risk thresholds, check toggles, frameworks, rollback exclude patterns). It clearly distinguishes from siblings — none of create_checkpoint, check_repo, explain_diff, classify_risk, or list_risky_files describe retrieving a resolved policy.

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 implies usage context — it's a policy-lookup tool that's safe because it doesn't run checks or mutate state — but it never explicitly states when to choose this vs alternatives, and no sibling tool is named for comparison. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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