get_trust_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read operation but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling (e.g., on invalid UUID), or access requirements. The description is adequate for a simple get but lacks depth.

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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the key action and distinctive feature (service user mappings). No superfluous words.

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 simplicity of a get operation, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It tells the agent what it retrieves. Minor improvement could be mentioning the response format or that it's a read-only call.

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% with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds context about the returned data but no additional meaning for the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'WIF trust policy', and a key detail 'including its service user mappings (IAM v1)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_trust_policies' or 'create_trust_policy' by specifying retrieval by UUID and included data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_trust_policies' or other get tools. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisites are mentioned.

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