merge_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains that no args returns current policy and args set values, which is adequate for a get/set operation. However, it omits details like side effects on existing merges, persistence, or authorization requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a crucial clarifier about the no-args behavior. Every sentence is necessary and there is no extraneous 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description says 'returns the current policy' but does not specify the format or fields of the response. It also lacks information on error conditions or validation of inputs, which might be needed for a complete agent understanding.

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%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds value by summarizing the parameters as 'two Fellegi-Sunter thresholds' and clarifying that no args returns the current policy, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 tool's function: get or set the per-project merge policy involving two thresholds and auto_apply. The verb 'Get or set' plus resource 'merge policy' is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'plan_merge' or 'merge_candidates'.

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 for viewing or modifying merge thresholds, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'plan_merge' or 'merge_candidates'. No when-not or prerequisite guidance is provided, which limits the agent's ability to choose correctly.

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