Get Policy Status

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, it discloses that reads are never gated and that policy is configured in the server environment and cannot be changed from a tool call — a behavioral fact that prevents an agent from attempting to modify policy. It does not describe the shape of the returned status values, but with zero parameters and no output schema this is a modest gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is reported, followed by the trigger and the immutability constraint. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is checked, what the policy scopes are (write/execute), who decided, and that policy is not tool-mutable. Only the exact return fields are unstated, a minor omission given the simplicity of the tool.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless call by describing a server-wide status check.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Show what this server permits right now') and enumerates exactly what is reported: write permission, execute permission for scripts/flows/tests, and which policy layer decided. No sibling tool in the list returns this information, so the purpose is unambiguous without opening the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger — 'Use it when a tool was refused' — which is exactly the diagnostic moment an agent needs it. It also clarifies that reads are never gated, implicitly narrowing when this check is relevant, though it does not explicitly state when not to call it.

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