get_workspace_policies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying endpoint (GET /openapi/v1/applications/{app_id}/policies), which signals a safe read, but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, result caps, or whether the list is complete or filtered.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a compact Args note and a return line. Mildly redundant to restate the return records when an output schema already exists, but nothing is padded.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, the single argument, and its source. The remaining gap is routing guidance against the near-identical sibling list_policies_for_workload, which the description never addresses.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: app_id is explained as the 'workspace/application id' plus where to obtain it (list_workspaces). That is meaningfully more than the bare 'App Id' title in the schema.

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 and resource ('List the policies defined in a workspace'), and the workspace scope implicitly separates it from the sibling list_policies_for_workload. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from scope alone.

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?

Usage is only implied — clearly a read for a given workspace — and the description never states when to prefer it over list_policies_for_workload or list_policies_for_workload. The one useful nudge is the provenance hint that app_id comes 'from `list_workspaces`', which chains the tool correctly.

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