dcs_asset_policies

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safety profile, and the description's '[READ]' prefix only repeats it. It adds no behavioral context on pagination behavior for the limit parameter, what policy fields are returned, or whether results are truncated.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The '[READ]' tag is somewhat redundant against the annotations, but the description is not bloated.

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 schema with no parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description should explain the return shape and the limit semantics. It leaves both undocumented, so an agent cannot fully know what calling it will produce.

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 0%, so both parameters rely on the description, yet it only vaguely implies that asset_id identifies an asset. The 'limit' parameter and its default of 100 are completely unmentioned, and there is no indication where asset_id values come from.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List policies') plus a scope ('assigned to an asset'), which separates it from the global dcs_policies sibling. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 [READ] tag and 'assigned to an asset' scope imply when to use it, but there is no explicit routing against dcs_policies or dcs_policy, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage has to be inferred.

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