zitadel_get_login_policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it tells the agent the read targets the current org and that the result reflects inheritance from the instance default versus a custom org policy.

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 leads with the verb and resource, with the elaborating clause placed after. No filler or redundancy.

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 with no output schema, the description usefully names the key fields returned (allowRegister, inheritance status), which compensates for the missing output schema. It stops short of covering error or empty/null cases.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no argument syntax the description needs to compensate for. The parenthetical clarifies that org scope is implicit via ZITADEL_ORG_ID rather than a call argument.

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) plus resource (the login policy of the current organization, pinned to ZITADEL_ORG_ID) and enumerates what the policy carries (allowRegister, inherited vs custom). This is distinguishable from the nearest sibling, zitadel_get_auth_config, which concerns a different configuration surface.

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 never states when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions (e.g., required org context or permissions). Only the scope of what is read is implied, with no exclusions or routing guidance.

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