dcs_policy_library

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

The "[READ]" marker merely restates the readOnlyHint=true annotation, so it adds no behavioral information. Nothing is said about pagination, whether limit is capped, default page size, or what is returned, despite limit being the sole control.

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 short sentence with the read tag front-loaded, so there is no wasted wording. However, the brevity is achieved by omission rather than by efficient writing.

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 minimal list tool with no output schema, the description must carry the load and does not: the resource type is undefined, its relation to sibling policy tools is unexplained, and the one parameter is undocumented. An agent could invoke it but not confidently.

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?

There is one parameter (limit) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to it — no default, no max, no pagination semantics. With a single undocumented parameter the description had a small burden and did not meet it.

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?

"List library policies" gives a verb and a resource, but "library policies" is undefined and the description never distinguishes this from the very similar siblings dcs_policies, dcs_policy, and dcs_policy_settings. An agent cannot tell from this text whether a library policy is a different entity type or a subset.

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 at all: no condition selecting it over dcs_policies or dcs_policy, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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