Client Policies

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds useful context about what information is returned (policy names, settings, assignment status) and the purpose of client policies, but doesn't provide additional behavioral details like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations cover.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the tool's purpose and output, the second provides context about client policies and usage scenarios. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 read-only tool with comprehensive annotations and no parameters, the description provides good context about what information is returned and when to use it. However, without an output schema, the description could benefit from more detail about the return format (e.g., whether it's a list, object structure, or paginated). The current description is mostly complete but has a minor gap in output specification.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. No parameter information is needed or expected given the empty input schema.

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 specific action ('List all Parallels RAS client policies') and resource ('client policies'), with explicit scope ('including policy names, settings, and assignment status'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on client policies rather than farms, infrastructure, publishing, sessions, sites, or support info.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to audit policy configuration or troubleshoot client behaviour issues'), giving practical application scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the purpose differentiation implies it's for client policies specifically.

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