sigma_list_deployment_documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral details such as pagination, permission requirements, or ordering. It is consistent with the annotations but does not go beyond them.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple read-only list operation with one required parameter and annotations already stating safety, the description sufficiently covers the use case. The existence of an output schema presumably handles return value details, so the description need not elaborate further.

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 sole parameter policy_id has 0% schema description coverage. The description implies policy_id references a deployment policy by saying 'in a deployment policy', which adds some meaning, but it does not explain the ID format, required values, or how to obtain one. This is a partial compensation at best.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'documents' and a scope 'in a deployment policy'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sigma_list_deployments (which lists policies) and sigma_add_deployment_documents (which adds documents).

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?

The description clearly conveys the tool's purpose: retrieve documents for a given deployment policy. While it does not name alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, the context is unambiguous given the tool name and sibling list, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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