Get RAI Policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'fetch' is consistent and safe. However, it adds no extra behavioral context such as error handling, return format, or prerequisites beyond what annotations provide.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no wasted wording.

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 simple read operation with strong annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, with no output schema, it does not state what the response contains or mention not-found behavior, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 0% and the description does not compensate. It merely echoes 'by id' without explaining what policy_id is, its format, or how to obtain it. The parameter is self-explanatory by name, but the description adds no meaningful semantic enrichment.

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 'Fetch a guardrail policy by id' uses a specific verb (fetch) and identifies the resource (guardrail policy) and scope (by id), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, and list.

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 usage context is implied—use when you need a single policy by ID—but there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or reference to alternatives like lyzr_rai_list_policies. It does not exclude other tools.

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