ncloud_drm_get_policy

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already signals a safe read operation, lowering the bar for additional disclosure. The description adds 'detailed configuration' but does not elaborate on return format, fields included, or error behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not enriched.

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, clearly worded sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no wasted wording or redundant information; every word earns its place.

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 read tool with a readOnly annotation, the description is largely complete. It lacks an output schema, so it does not enumerate the fields returned in the 'detailed configuration', but this is a minor gap given the standard 'get detail' pattern. The source of the policyId in the schema helps the agent invoke it correctly, so overall it is nearly 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?

The schema has full 100% coverage for the single parameter policyId, and the schema description adds important context: 'DRM policy ID (from ncloud_drm_list_policies)'. This tells the agent where to obtain the ID, which goes beyond the bare type and name. The description does not need to compensate further because the schema is self-sufficient.

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 'Get detailed configuration of a specific DRM policy' uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('detailed configuration of a specific DRM policy'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_drm_list_policies, which lists policies, and ncloud_drm_update_policy/delete_policy, which modify them.

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 retrieving details of a single policy but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. The parameter description hints that the policy ID comes from ncloud_drm_list_policies, which suggests a workflow, but no when-not or alternative guidance is provided. This is an implied usage, not explicit.

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