dcs_policies

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, and the description's only added behavioral claim is 'explicit output cap' — which never states the cap value, whether it is the default of 100, or what happens when more policies exist. It does not contradict the annotations, but it adds almost nothing the agent can act on.

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 single sentence is short and front-loaded, but under-specification is being mistaken for conciseness. The '[READ]' prefix duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and consumes space that should have gone to parameter meaning.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations beyond readOnly, and zero parameter documentation, the description is the only carrier of meaning — and it supplies none of the missing pieces (filter semantics, cap behavior, return shape). It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool reliably.

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 have 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and fails: `filter_text` (what fields it matches, substring vs exact) is never mentioned, and `limit` is only obliquely gestured at via 'output cap'. An agent can only guess what these two inputs do.

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 verb+resource ('List DCS policies') is identifiable, so the core purpose is understandable. However, the definition never distinguishes this tool from the singular sibling `dcs_policy`, and the trailing phrase 'with an explicit output cap' is vague enough that it reads more like a note than a statement of purpose.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives among the many policy-related siblings (`dcs_policy`, `dcs_policy_violations`, `dcs_policy_settings`, `dcs_policy_library`). Usage must be inferred entirely from the word 'List'.

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