rls_list_policies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list with columns table, policy, command, and introduces the special value 'all' for schema_name, which adds behavioral context. However, it doesn't state potential side effects, permissions required, or error behavior. For a simple read-only listing tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary action and provides a useful usage hint in the second sentence. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the core purpose and the special schema_name behavior. The description could be more explicit about the default schema behavior, but the schema's default value already covers that, so this is not a significant gap.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions for parameters, but the tool description compensates by explaining the schema_name parameter and introducing the special value 'all' for all schemas. This adds meaning beyond the schema's default value of 'public', helping the agent understand how to use the parameter effectively.

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 RLS policies and specifies the fields returned (table, policy, command). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like rls_get_policy by indicating a listing operation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'List' is specific and the resource is clear.

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 usage by stating schema_name='all' for all schemas, which tells the user how to get all policies. However, it doesn't explicitly explain when to use this tool vs alternatives like rls_get_policy or rls_list_coverage, nor does it mention the default behavior (e.g., defaulting to 'public' schema). Usage context is present but not fully explicit.

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