get_ui_policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds a behavioral constraint (requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true), which provides useful context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds a key requirement. Every word earns its place with no 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 simple read tool with one parameter and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It specifies the tool returns 'full details and conditions', which is sufficient for an agent to understand the output scope. No output schema exists, but the description hints at completeness.

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 coverage is 100% (sys_id described as 'UI Policy sys_id'). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves full details and conditions of a UI Policy, using the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'UI Policy'. It distinguishes from sibling list_ui_policies by implying it is for a single policy's detailed view.

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 a clear context for when to use the tool (to get full details of a UI Policy) and explicitly mentions a prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools.

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