list_policies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or add details like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all policies' entails (e.g., across all organizations or filtered). The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'List all policies in the system'. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or output. With no annotations and no output schema, more detail on what the list returns (e.g., policy objects with fields) would improve completeness, but the simplicity keeps it from being severely inadequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'organizationIds' documented in the schema as 'Organization IDs to filter policies by. Leave empty to use default (0).' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining the format of IDs or the implications of the default. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 policies in the system' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('policies'), with 'all' indicating scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_policy_by_id' (which retrieves a single policy) or 'create_policy' (which creates rather than lists), though the distinction is somewhat implied by the verb 'list' versus 'get' or 'create'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'list_policies' over 'get_policy_by_id' for retrieving specific policies, or how it relates to other list tools like 'list_organizations'. There's no context on prerequisites, such as needing organization access, or exclusions.

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