writ_policy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey that this is a read ('Read ...') and that the result describes allow/deny/grant/step-up rules, which is useful behavioral context. However, it says nothing about auth/tenant scoping requirements or whether the policy is cached or tenant-specific beyond the word 'tenant'.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its contents are stated up front and the sentence ends exactly where it should.

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 an output schema already covering return values, the description is essentially complete: it states what is read and what the policy encodes. The only minor gap is the absence of any routing hint versus the sibling verbs.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what an empty schema already communicates.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the tenant's verb policy') and even enumerates the policy's contents (allow, deny, require a grant, step up). That is far more than a tautology. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from siblings like writ_check, which an agent could plausibly confuse with reading a policy.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Read the tenant's verb policy' suggests a lookup use case, but there is no statement of when to call this versus writ_check or writ_grant, nor any prerequisite (e.g., tenant context or auth). Adequate but with a clear gap.

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