Policy Runs v2

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds context about using the v2 API for richer data but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits. Since annotations carry the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every word adds value, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (not shown but signaled), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers key filtering dimensions and uses annotations for safety. However, with 10 parameters, more parameter-level detail would improve completeness. Still, it is mostly adequate for a list tool.

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?

With 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It lists parameter categories (time-range, policy name/type, result status) but does not explain individual parameters or provide format details. Many parameters remain undocumented, making it insufficient for optimal agent selection.

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 states the tool lists policy runs with filtering by time range, policy name/type, and result status. It distinguishes itself from the standard policy execution timeline by referencing the richer Policy History v2 API, making it unique among siblings.

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 implies when to use this tool (when richer data is needed via v2 API) and specifies available filters. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the differentiation from the standard timeline provides sufficient context for an agent to choose.

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