list_detectors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool 'lists all' detectors, implying a read-only, non-filtering operation, and explains the practical purpose of the returned data. It lacks explicit mention of no side effects, but the verb 'lists' and context are clear for a simple list operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then adds practical context about usage. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (so return structure is elsewhere), the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns conceptually (policyName), and why to use it. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (an empty object). The description adds no parameter-specific details, but the baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and there is nothing more to add.

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 ('Lists all') and clearly identifies the resource ('custom Chrome DLP detectors'), including the three types (URL lists, word lists, regular expressions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_dlp_rules or create_regex_detector.

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 provides a clear use case: finding the 'policyName' of a detector to include in a rule. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficiently implied given the sibling list.

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