teramind_list_behavior_policies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses a key behavioral boundary: this returns rule configuration metadata, never captured activity that matched a policy. This is useful and goes beyond the tool name alone, though it does not mention output shape or pagination.

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 three sentences with no filler. The parenthetical UI mapping is useful, the configuration-only scope is front-loaded, and the dependency on get_behavior_policy is stated efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what is listed, what kind of data is excluded, and how the response connects to a sibling tool. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to explain about parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively complete since there are no fields.

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 and resource ('List behavior policies') and states exactly what the response contains: activity type watched, match conditions, and actions/reactions. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_behavior_policy by noting that this is configuration metadata only, not captured activity.

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 frames this list tool as a prerequisite for teramind_get_behavior_policy by stating that policy IDs from this response are required by that tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name direct alternatives, but the dependency relationship gives strong usage context.

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