get_sod_policy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets detailed information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., policy rules, status, metadata), whether it's a read-only operation, error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), or performance aspects like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with sensitive compliance data.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Get detailed information') and specifies the target resource clearly, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of SOD (Segregation of Duties) policies in compliance systems, the description is insufficient. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential side effects, or error handling. This leaves the agent poorly equipped to use the tool effectively in a real-world scenario.

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 the 'id' parameter fully. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining where to obtain the ID or format constraints. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific SOD policy'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_sod_policies' or 'get_sod_violations', which would require explicit comparison to earn a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_sod_policies' for browsing policies or 'get_sod_violations' for related data, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a policy ID from another operation.

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