list_alert_policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by noting the output includes whether policies are enabled and by explaining the environment selection behavior. It does not disclose pagination or return structure details, but the annotations and simple tool nature keep the burden low.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence in the Args section earns its place by clarifying a parameter. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 low-complexity tool with no required parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what the parameters mean, and the behavior when 'environment' is omitted. Nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly 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 schema provides no descriptions for the parameters, but the description fully compensates. It explains 'limit' as the maximum number of policies to return and explains 'environment' with concrete examples and the default-omission behavior. This is exactly the semantic clarity an agent needs beyond the raw 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List Cloud Monitoring alert policies and whether they are enabled.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other resource types such as compute instances, GKE clusters, or uptime checks.

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 frames the tool as listing Cloud Monitoring alert policies, which is enough to infer when it should be used. It does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives or when not to use it, but the resource-specific language provides clear context among the sibling tools.

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