get_effective_csps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the resolution order tenant → team → agent → user and the override rule, which is not present in the schema or annotations.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences carry all essential information. There is no repetition of schema details or annotation content.

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?

The description plus schema gives an agent enough to select and invoke the tool: purpose, scopes, and resolution behavior are clear. It does not explain the output shape or whether parameters can be combined, but this is a read-only resolution tool and these gaps are minor.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter is already described with its scope ('UUID do time para resolver CSPs no escopo team', etc.). The description adds the inheritance ordering but no additional per-parameter semantic detail.

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') and names the exact resource ('políticas efetivas') for a specific context. The mention of scope inheritance and hierarchy clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_csp or list_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?

It clearly states when this tool is appropriate: when a caller needs resolved/effective policies after applying scope inheritance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unmistakable.

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