get_network_qos_policies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden; 'List' plus 'no bandwidth rules are created' signals a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is useful. However, it says nothing about scoping rules, pagination, or what 'project-owned' means in practice (current project vs. all visible projects).

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?

A single compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. The trailing clause about bandwidth rules is slightly cryptic but earns its place by scoping what is and is not returned.

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?

Zero parameters and a present output schema mean little description is strictly required. Still, for a listing tool with no annotations, it could state the returned scope (e.g., all policies in the current project, unfiltered) to remove ambiguity about 'project-owned'.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is fully described and empty. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and a specific resource (project-owned Neutron QoS policy containers), and clarifies it returns containers rather than bandwidth rules. It does not explicitly differentiate from the nearby get_volume_qos sibling, but the network-vs-volume distinction is inferable from 'Neutron'.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named despite get_volume_qos and get_network_details being plausible confusions. Usage is only implied by the word 'List'.

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