Elements List Source Swap Policies

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantive operational detail: it auto-paginates to the last page and explains how returned keys behave across pages, including null nextPage / false hasMore. This is useful context beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then pagination/return behavior. The second paragraph is dense but each detail (entries, total, nextPage null) earns its place by making the auto-pagination predictable.

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and safe read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is listed and how pagination is aggregated. It could be slightly stronger with explicit routing versus the single-policy getter, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify or compensate for.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('source swap policies'), with a parenthetical clarifying that these are deployment-time automatic source swapping rules. It distinguishes itself from singular get/update/delete siblings by saying 'List all', though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance is provided. The phrase 'List all source swap policies' implies enumeration, but an agent gets no direct routing advice versus elements_get_source_swap_policy or the create/update/delete siblings.

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