list_access_policies

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds ordering ('newest first'), an explicit no-mutation guarantee, and the shape of the return (total plus current page of summaries with versions, not full policy bodies). That return-shape disclosure is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and ordering, then filters, then return shape and the sibling hand-off. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 12-parameter, zero-required list tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, filters, ordering, return granularity, and the get_access_policy hand-off, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. Pagination semantics (zero-based page, page_size) are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given output/schema richness.

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 100%, so every filter parameter is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description's filter enumeration (subject, MCP server, effect, enabled state, creation time) loosely groups user_id/agent_id, server_id, effect, enabled, and start/end_time but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, and omits search, created_by, workspace_id, page_size, and current_page.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Inspect active workspace access policies'), adds ordering ('newest first') and scope ('active'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_access_policy, which returns full subjects/targets. An agent can select this over its siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_access_policy when complete subjects and targets are needed, which is the key decision point between list and get. It doesn't spell out when-not to use this tool (e.g., no filtering/pagination caveats), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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