list_policies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via '[READ]', describes the return envelope structure, and warns about truncation meaning an incomplete set. However, it does not explain how to request the next page when truncated, so it is not fully transparent.

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 uses a clear three-part structure: summary, args, and returns. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose. No fluff or redundant 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 tool is simple with 2 optional parameters, and the description covers parameter semantics, the return envelope, and the truncation caveat. The only minor gap is pagination follow-up, but given the lack of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, the description is complete enough for correct use.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains both parameters: vhost (restricts to one vhost, default '/') and target (RabbitMQ target name from config, default). It also clarifies the behavior of omitting each parameter, fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 tool as listing policies, optionally restricted to a vhost, and specifies the returned fields (pattern, priority, definition). The '[READ]' prefix and resource focus distinguish it from sibling mutation tools like set_policy and delete_policy.

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 explains how to scope the call (vhost, target) and the default behavior when omitted, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The read-only nature is implied, but no exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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