yaaif_agent_spec_policy_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only ('Read') and provides a default behavior for new tenants ('New tenants default to observe'), which helps the agent understand the state it might encounter. This is valuable context beyond the name. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like caching or rate limits, but for a simple getter, this is sufficient.

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 states the primary action and a key detail about default behavior. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place. There is no fluff, and it is appropriately brief for a zero-parameter getter.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is fully complete. It tells the agent exactly what it does (reads the mode), what the default is (observe), and implies the return type (the mode value). There is nothing else an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly. The simplicity of the operation makes this sufficient.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously true). Since there are no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The description focuses on the return value (the enforcement mode) and default behavior, which is the only meaningful semantic content. A score of 4 is appropriate because the description effectively 'documents' the return value, which is the only relevant semantic aspect.

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 it reads the tenant Scenario enforcement mode, with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('tenant Scenario enforcement mode'). It also provides a useful default behavior ('New tenants default to observe'), which clarifies the tool's purpose without ambiguity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like yaaif_agent_spec_policy_set and yaaif_agent_spec_policy_import, which are mutating or importing operations.

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 a read-only operation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to use yaaif_agent_spec_policy_get instead of yaaif_agent_spec_policy_export or yaaif_agent_spec_policy_set. The context of 'Read the tenant Scenario enforcement mode' is clear, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or when to prefer a sibling. Without annotations, this is a minor gap.

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