llm_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses that it displays merged policy from three specific file locations and the last 10 audit events. The verb 'Show' implies read-only behavior, so no contradiction. However, it could explicitly state that it does not modify any state.

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 extremely concise, using just three lines to convey the purpose and details. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses bullet points for clarity. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 zero parameters and the existence of an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description is fully complete. It tells the agent exactly what information will be shown: the merged policy from three explicit sources and the last 10 audit events. No gaps remain.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics since none exist. It correctly focuses on the output behavior.

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 the tool shows the active routing policy and recent policy audit events. It specifies the resource ('routing policy') and the action ('Show'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing the three policy layers and the audit log aspect.

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 that this tool should be used when one wants to view the policy and recent audit events, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the decision to the agent without clear boundaries.

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