yaaif_agent_spec_policy_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that this is an export (non-mutating) action returning a portable document, but it does not specify output format, delivery mechanism, or permissions. This is adequate for a zero-parameter read-style tool, though more detail would help.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence. It states the action and resource immediately, and 'portable' plus 'review or promotion across environments' add meaningful context without padding.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and what is produced. It could be more explicit about what 'portable' means or how the export is returned, but an agent can still select and call this tool correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing is missing in parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export') on a specific resource ('Scenario tenant policy document') and adds a clear purpose ('for review or promotion across environments'). It distinguishes this from nearby policy and release tools by emphasizing 'portable' and cross-environment use.

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 clear context for when this tool is relevant—review or promotion across environments—so an agent can match it to the user's intent. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is sufficiently stated.

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