bitdefender_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 and does well: 'List' signals a read operation, account scoping is stated, and the paginated envelope with field names is disclosed. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but those are not critical for a simple listing operation.

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 compact: one sentence for purpose and fields, one for the downstream dependency, and one for the response envelope. No wasted words, and the most important operational facts are 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, read-only listing tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what the tool returns, the pagination shape, the item fields, and the relationship to bitdefender_get_policy. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents page and perPage. The description's mention of a paginated envelope adds relevant context but does not add new semantics beyond what the parameter descriptions already convey, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('List security policies available to the account') and names the returned fields, so there is no ambiguity. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools by focusing on security policies and explicitly linking its output to bitdefender_get_policy.

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 clearly states the primary use case: obtain policy IDs that then feed into bitdefender_get_policy. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools, but the domain focus ('security policies') makes the appropriate context evident.

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