list_escalation_policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond stating it returns a list. It does not contradict 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?

The description is succinct, front-loads the main purpose, and uses a clean Args/Returns structure. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks details on pagination behavior, default limit, or query matching rules. For a list tool with 5 optional parameters, more context on edge cases would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter (e.g., 'query: Filter by name', 'limit: Max results to return'). However, 'include' is described vaguely as 'e.g. services, teams' without specifying exact allowable values.

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 states 'List escalation policies with optional filtering', which clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (escalation policies). It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_escalation_policy' by implying a multi-result operation.

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 mentions optional filtering parameters, indicating when to use it (when multiple policies are needed). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'get_escalation_policy' for a single policy.

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