list_alert_policies

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. The word 'List' clearly indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose whether results are paginated, what fields are returned, or any account-level permission constraints, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

One short sentence that conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and behavior without any wasted words. It is fully front-loaded and easily parsed.

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, simple list operation, the description is almost complete. It tells the agent exactly what will happen (list all alert policies) and the scope (account). However, since there is no output schema, the agent is left without explicit information about the response shape or expected fields, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 schema is already complete (100% coverage). The description adds nothing about parameters, which is appropriate; there is nothing to document. Baseline 4 is warranted.

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 'List all alert policies in the account' clearly names the action (list), the resource (alert policies), and the scope (account). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like list_alert_conditions (conditions) and get_alert_violations (violations) based on resource type alone.

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 when to use the tool—when a full account-level list of alert policies is needed—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Since the resource is unambiguous, an agent could infer usage, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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