hb_policy_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behavioral traits—read-only and canonical-only (excluding non-canonical/overridden entries)—but says nothing about permissions, pagination, result count limits, or ordering for what is presumably a large registry.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the key constraint parenthesized. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse for a four-parameter tool.

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?

With four parameters, 25% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition omits far too much: the meaning of kind/scope/consumer, the shape of returned entries, and any pagination behavior. An agent can invoke it only by guessing at filter semantics.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'query' is documented), so three of four parameters (kind, scope, consumer) are opaque. The description says entries can be filtered but never explains what kinds, scopes, or consumers are valid or how they combine, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List policy-registry entries'), so an agent knows this is a read/listing operation over the policy registry. It does not name or contrast with the sibling hb_policy_resolve, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered' hints that filters are supported but gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of the alternative hb_policy_resolve. The agent must infer that resolution (not listing) is the alternative path.

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