list_policiesWaitingForPower's six bipartisan permitting-reform policy proposals, one per structural cause category — each with a summary, strengths, weaknesses, and related bills. This is the site's argued position, distinct from the neutral cause categories in list_causes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by quantifying the output as six proposals and enumerating the item structure: summary, strengths, weaknesses, and related bills.
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 sentences carry all the necessary information with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's content and scope; the second efficiently routes the agent to the sibling distinction.
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, read-only listing tool, the description is complete: it states the number of items, the content fields, and the relationship to a similarly named sibling. There is no output schema, but the item structure is already described in the prose.
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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this dimension is well satisfied without further description.
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 identifies a specific resource: WaitingForPower's six bipartisan permitting-reform policy proposals, and clarifies its scope as one proposal per structural cause category. It also differentiates itself from list_causes by calling itself the site's argued position, so an agent can tell them apart.
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 sentence 'This is the site's argued position, distinct from the neutral cause categories in list_causes' explicitly names the alternative sibling and states the key distinction. This effectively tells an agent to use this tool for argued positions and list_causes for neutral categories.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.