get_csp

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that results include rules and exceptions, which is useful given the lack of an output schema, but it goes no further into behavior such as error cases or response shape.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the resource, depth of detail, and included content without any filler. Every part contributes useful information.

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 simple read-only lookup by ID, the description plus annotations are largely sufficient. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by mentioning rules and exceptions, though a fuller listing of returned fields would make it more complete.

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 single parameter csp_id is fully documented in the input schema with type, format, and a description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Retorna') with a clear resource ('detalhes completos de uma política de segurança') and specifies the content scope ('incluindo regras e exceções'). This clearly distinguishes it from list-style siblings like list_csps and get_effective_csps.

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 the tool is used when a single CSP's full details are needed by providing a csp_id. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives such as list_csps or get_effective_csps, nor does it state any exclusions.

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