iam_policies

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

The description includes '[READ][risk=low]' and explains behavioral details: the limit parameter causes envelope truncation reports, and target can be omitted for the default. These go beyond the bare schema and provide useful context, though no annotations are present to verify safety.

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: a one-line noun phrase plus a two-item argument list. Every word carries meaning, and the structure is front-loaded with the read/risk indicator. No filler or repetition.

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 list tool, the description covers the essential behaviors (read-only, limit behavior, target selection). However, it does not explain the return format or the meaning of 'envelope', and there is no output schema to compensate. It is adequate but minimal, missing some context an agent might need.

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?

Both parameters are clearly explained beyond the schema. For 'limit', it states it controls the maximum number of policy names and mentions truncation reporting. For 'target', it explains it's a MinIO target name from config and that omitting uses the default. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 identifies the resource as 'canned policy names defined on the deployment', which distinguishes it from sibling IAM tools like iam_users and iam_groups. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return', making the action implicit rather than stated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool (e.g., iam_users) would be more appropriate. The usage context is only implied by the read-only nature.

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