list_policies

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, but the description goes further by documenting the return envelope shape and, critically, the 'truncated' flag semantics ('do not treat this as the complete set'). That truncation warning is genuinely useful context beyond 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?

Front-loads purpose, then Args, then Returns — a clean structure where each block earns its place. Slightly verbose in the returns section but no wasted sentences.

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 read-only list tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description covers both parameters and the response envelope including pagination/truncation behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load — and it does, clarifying that vhost defaults to '/' and that target is a 'rabbitmq target name from config' omitted for the default. This is meaningful semantics the bare schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Policies') and enumerates the returned fields (pattern, priority, definition), with a '[READ]' marker that separates it from set_policy/delete_policy by implication. It never explicitly names a sibling, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 Args section implies usage context ('omit for all', 'omit for the default'), giving basic guidance on scope selection. However, it never tells the agent when to choose this over sibling tools like list_queues or set_policy, so usage is only implied.

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