Get Header Policy

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds behavioral details such as the spec-only constraint on includeImpact and the requirement for project context. It clearly communicates a read operation with no side effects or contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the primary purpose, then explains parameters in a logical order, and includes a note on prerequisites. Each sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently describes what the tool returns (scopes, components, rowVersion, and optionally impact). It also covers prerequisites (project context) and parameter-specific constraints, making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds extra value by explaining the relationship between levels and specId, and by mentioning the spec-only limitation for includeImpact, which enhances understanding beyond the 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 clearly states the action (get), the resource (one header policy), and the specific fields returned (scopes, assigned header components, rowVersion). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'one' policy, aligning with the singular name versus plural alternatives like get_header_policies.

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 usage context by explaining the 'spec' vs 'project' levels, the need for specId, and the spec-only behavior of includeImpact. It also notes that project context is required. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools (e.g., when to use this over list_header_policies), leaving some inference up to the agent.

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