get_guardrail_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. It usefully discloses the shape of the returned content (name, description, detector config), which lets an agent know this is a read. However, it says nothing about permissions, error behavior for an unknown id, or any side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the action and the returned fields, with no filler. Efficient, though the field list slightly truncates what an agent might want to know.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return content adequately, but it leaves the parameter's semantics and any read-safety/error expectations unstated. It is minimally sufficient rather than complete.

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 0% and the single parameter policy_id has no type detail beyond 'string'. The description only implies that the id identifies one policy; it adds no information about id format, source, or how to obtain a valid value, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (one guardrail policy) and enumerates what is returned: name, description, user/assistant detector configuration. 'One' implicitly distinguishes it from list_guardrail_policies, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the singular 'one' and the required policy_id, suggesting retrieval of a single policy versus the listing sibling. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative.

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