list_policies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the output (list of policies with resource definitions and access rules) but does not mention any access requirements, side effects, or limitations beyond the return value. It is a read-only operation by implication but not explicitly stated.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main action stated in the first line. The 'Returns:' section adds useful detail without redundancy or unnecessary length. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context for a simple list operation. It describes the return format and the intended audience, though it could have explicitly stated its relationship to sibling tools for more complete context.

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, and the description correctly adds no parameter-specific information. Per the rubric, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate for 0 parameters, as there is nothing to describe beyond the 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 'List all Ranger policies for the RAG service' with a specific verb and resource. It further explains the purpose as showing access mappings, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_knowledge_bases and check_access.

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 says 'Useful for administrators to understand the current access control setup,' which provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit comparisons to sibling tools.

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