list_org_policies

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as return format, pagination, rate limits, or side effects. The description simply states the action without revealing any behavioral traits beyond the obvious.

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 extremely concise at three words, which is efficient but lacks necessary details. It could be considered too terse given the lack of context; a slightly longer description with more nuance would be more helpful.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameters, the description carries the full burden of completeness. It fails to explain what policies are, the scope, or the structure of the output. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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 with 100% description coverage (trivially). The description adds no parameter information but is not required to since there are none. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description does not need to elaborate.

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' clearly states the action (list) and resource (policies). It distinguishes from sibling tools that list other entities like collections, groups, or members. However, it does not specify whether this lists policies for the entire organization or a specific context, which could be improved.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_org_policy for a single policy). There are no exclusions or context hints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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