Get Header Policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context about the cascade resolution and the project-context requirement. It does not describe error behavior or output format, but that is partially mitigated by the read-only 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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action, then adds the cascade behavior and the prerequisite in a compact way.

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-only getter with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned (resolved headers with cascade) and an important precondition (project context). It is reasonably complete, though it could mention what happens when project context is not set.

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%, so the input schema already documents specId and endpointId. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond referencing an endpoint and project context, which keeps this at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get resolved headers for an endpoint'. It adds detail about the full cascade (organization → project → specification). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling 'get_resolved_headers', so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 by saying 'Requires project context', which tells the agent a precondition. It does not state when to use this tool over alternatives such as list_header_policies or get_resolved_headers, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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