inforcer_policies_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds 'Read-only' and the useful detail that tenant identifiers are resolved to a numeric Client Tenant ID before the request. It does not address pagination, result shape, or open-world behavior, but the read-only safety profile is already covered by 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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence contributes either the purpose, accepted input forms, or the read-only nature. The 'Read-only' phrase slightly duplicates the annotation but is not excessive.

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, read-only list operation, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the accepted tenant identifier formats, and resolution behavior. It does not describe the returned policy fields, but the low complexity and lack of an output schema make this a minor 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 schema already fully documents the single 'tenant' parameter with the same explanation of accepted formats. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'List policies for a tenant.' It gives enough specificity to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as inforcer_baselines_list.

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 the use case: listing policies for a tenant, and clarifies acceptable tenant identifiers. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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