List draftable policies and what each supports

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral context by revealing that the tool returns not just policy names but also SOC 2 criteria and extra deliverables beyond the document, which goes beyond the raw 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 a single sentence but conveys three distinct pieces of information: the scope (server-draftable policies), the criteria mapping (SOC 2), and the caveat about additional required outputs. There is no redundancy with the title or annotations, and every clause 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?

With zero parameters, a rich output schema, and safety annotations already provided, the description covers the essential operational context: what the tool returns, the scope of that return, and a key nuance about what else is needed. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether to call this tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on return semantics instead.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('the policies this server can draft'), and further specifies what each policy supports: SOC 2 criteria and additional required deliverables. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like draft_policy or list_findings.

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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs to see which policies are draftable and what each entails, which differentiates it from scanning or finding tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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