keel_list_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. It clearly states a read-type 'List' behavior and specifies the returned fields, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, default filters, whether only certain statuses are returned, or any permissions/rate-limit considerations.

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 focused sentence that states the operation, the resource, and the return fields with no unnecessary filler. It is concise and front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description's field enumeration plus the schema's query filter documentation is sufficient for correct invocation. Minor gaps such as pagination or ordering exist, but they are not critical for basic use.

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 single optional query parameter is fully documented in the input schema with 'Optional case-insensitive substring filter over the policy title.' Because schema_description_coverage is 100%, the description does not need to repeat this; the baseline of 3 applies and the description adds no parameter-level value.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workspace policies') and enumerates the returned fields, making the operation unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from sibling list tools such as keel_list_vendors or keel_list_risks because it names the exact resource.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool to list workspace policies, and the resource name separates it from sibling list tools. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites.

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