get_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. 'Retrieves' clearly indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation. The behavior is straightforward: return the policy matching the ID. It lacks details on error handling or auth, but for a simple retrieval, this is adequate.

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 filler, front-loading the verb and object. Every word is essential. No wasted text.

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 the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it fails to mention the return value shape or potential errors (e.g., missing policy). With no output schema, a hint about the response structure would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%—the parameter 'policy_id' already includes a description ('ID of the policy to retrieve (24 characters)'). The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Retrieves' and a clear resource 'policy', with the means 'by its ID'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_policy, update_policy, delete_policy, etc. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 clearly implies use when you have a policy ID and need to fetch its details. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for listing policies) or provide alternatives. For a simple get-by-ID tool, the implied usage is sufficient, earning a 4.

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