get_policy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond a noun phrase — it does not say whether the policy is the owner-authored file, the validated/effective version, what "guard-rails" enforce, or what happens when policy.toml is missing or malformed.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no padding, but it is a noun phrase rather than a sentence with a verb, so it is terse without being front-loaded with an action. The terseness reads as under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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?

Complexity is low (zero parameters, output schema present, annotations present), so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. Still, it omits the one thing only prose can supply: what the policy actually contains and how it relates to the desired-state tools.

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 no parameter semantics to document; the baseline applies. Schema coverage is reported at 100% with an empty properties object, so nothing is missing on this dimension.

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 phrase "The owner's policy.toml guard-rails as loaded" largely restates the name get_policy without a verb and without saying what the policy governs. "as loaded" hints at returning in-memory/config state rather than a file on disk, but this is an inference the agent must make, not a stated purpose.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and the siblings that clearly relate to policy/desired state (check_desired_state, apply_desired_state, snapshot_config, diff_config) are never referenced. The agent is left to guess whether this is a read of file content, effective runtime policy, or a rule set used by apply_desired_state.

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