ibmcloud_iam_access_group_policies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only says 'List policies for an access group' and discloses no side effects, output format, error behavior, required permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. This is minimal and leaves the agent without expectations about the result or failures.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and object without any filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation with one parameter, and every word contributes to understanding.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but sparse. It does not mention what the output looks like, whether the group must exist, or any result characteristics. While the schema covers the parameter, the description leaves some operational context missing, making it 'minimum viable' rather than complete.

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 coverage is 100%: the sole parameter 'group' is described as 'Access group name' in the schema. The tool description reinforces that the group is the access group but adds no additional semantic details (e.g., whether it's an ID or display name, case sensitivity, or format). With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List policies for an access group' clearly states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('policies'), and the scope ('for an access group'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ibmcloud_iam_access_group_policy_create (create) and ibmcloud_iam_access_group (view group details).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion cases. The description is purely functional and does not help an agent decide between listing policies and creating/viewing policies or groups.

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