proofpoint_policy_get

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the tool returns detailed information including rules, conditions, and actions, which is a read-only operation. It does not disclose potential errors, auth requirements, or rate limits, but for a simple getter this is acceptable; adds some value but not rich.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the action and object. No filler.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and return content (rules, conditions, actions). It might have noted error scenarios, but overall complete for a simple GET operation.

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 schema already documents the only parameter policy_id with a clear description, giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional detail beyond saying 'specific policy,' so it meets the baseline but does not enrich further.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves details for a specific policy, listing the main components (rules, conditions, actions). The verb 'Get' and resource 'specific policy' distinguishes it from sibling proofpoint_policy_list.

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 implies this tool is for fetching details of a single policy by ID, which is clear in the context of a list tool sibling. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it's clear but not fully explicit.

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