List detection policies

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses important behavior: server-side supports pagination only, and category/enabled/search filters are applied client-side. It also advises increasing `limit` for large deployments, adding practical context beyond the schema.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose, a usage/alternative line, and a technical note. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, an alternative tool, and critical pagination caveat. Since an output schema exists, return details are not needed, making the description comprehensive for a list operation.

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?

Despite 0% schema-coverage, the description adds meaning to `limit` ('increase `limit` to capture more before filtering') and clarifies that category/enabled/search are client-side filters. It doesn't individually explain `paused`, but the overall filter behavior is conveyed.

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 explicitly states 'Returns OT detection policies — the rules that fire events' and enumerates key attributes (level, flags, event-type, counts). It also distinguishes itself from `query_policy_findings` by directing users there for per-asset hits.

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?

It gives clear scenarios: 'audit which policies are configured, which are noisy, or which are paused.' It also names the alternative tool for per-asset hits, fulfilling the when-to-use vs alternative requirement.

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