sigma_list_source_swap_policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds domain context that these are 'rules for automatic source swapping on deployment'. This enriches understanding but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination or whether results are sorted, so it adequately complements but does not exceed the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by a brief clarifying parenthetical. Every element earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool has no parameters, a clear list action, and an output schema (indicated by the context signals), the description is fully sufficient. The parenthetical explains the domain purpose, making the tool's role in the broader API clear without needing additional return-value details.

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 the input schema is empty, so no parameter descriptions are needed. The description reinforces that the tool lists all policies without filters, aligning with the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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' and clearly identifies the resource 'source swap policies', then adds a parenthetical explaining their purpose. This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like sigma_get_source_swap_policy (singular) and sigma_create_source_swap_policy, making the intent 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?

The description implies usage for enumerating all source swap policies, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like sigma_get_source_swap_policy or the various swap tools. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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