dcs_policy_violations

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

The "[READ]" prefix merely duplicates the readOnlyHint=true annotation, adding no new behavioral information. Nothing is said about pagination defaults, result ordering, scope (single policy vs all), or whether an empty result is possible; with annotations covering only the safety profile, the description should carry more of this burden.

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 text is technically short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than concision. A single four-word fragment plus a redundant tag leaves no room for scope, filtering, or return-value framing.

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 readOnlyHint, and zero parameter description coverage, the description is the only explanatory surface — and it provides essentially nothing. The agent cannot tell what a call returns or how to interpret policy_id and limit from this definition alone.

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 the description needs to explain both parameters, yet it mentions neither. The required policy_id (which policy namespace? ID format?) and the limit parameter (default 100, but no pagination semantics) are undocumented beyond their bare titles.

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?

"[READ] Read policy violations" essentially restates the tool name (dcs_policy_violations) with no additional specificity. It does not say what a "policy violation" is in this system, what entity it belongs to, or how it differs from siblings like dcs_policy, dcs_policies, or dcs_asset_policies.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many policy-related siblings (dcs_policy, dcs_policy_settings, dcs_policy_library, dcs_asset_policies). The agent is left to infer selection 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.