list_restriction_policies

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It states it is a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, error handling, or whether the call is safe. The minimal description adds little beyond the basic action.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. The first states the purpose, the second elaborates on what is returned. Highly efficient.

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 operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks details on error conditions, response format, or additional behavioral context that would help an agent predict outcomes.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'resource_id'. The description mentions 'for a specific resource', which pairs with the parameter name but adds minimal extra meaning. Since the parameter name is self-evident, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('restriction policy') and indicates the scope ('for a specific resource'). It also adds what it shows ('access control bindings and principals'), distinguishing it from siblings that might be generic get/list tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among numerous sibling tools (e.g., 'get_monitor_config_policies'), there is no differentiation or context about when to choose this one.

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