list_policies_for_workload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read against GET /openapi/v1/workload/{uuid}/policies and identifies the data source, but says nothing about pagination, permissions, or result shape. Adequate but not rich for an unannotated tool.

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 followed by a scoped args block and a short rationale. Slightly verbose around the endpoint sentence, but each line carries information without waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still names the underlying endpoint and the practical intent. For a single-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, with only permissions/pagination details absent.

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 coverage is 0% and there is one parameter, so the description must compensate. It does: 'uuid: The workload/sensor UUID (from list_sensors)' tells the agent what the value is and where to obtain it, which is more than the schema offers.

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 with clear scope ('policies that currently apply to a single workload'), which distinguishes it from the workspace-level sibling get_workspace_policies. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, but the workload-vs-workspace scope is unambiguous.

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 implied by 'useful to understand exactly what a given host is allowed to talk to' and by pointing to list_sensors as the source of the uuid. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative tool.

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