ep_list_policies

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

No annotations provided, so description must bear the burden. It states the action is a list and mentions the content, but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits such as that it's read-only or any potential constraints.

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 efficient sentences with no redundant information. The purpose and usage are front-loaded, and every word adds value.

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, parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what it does and why it should be used, leaving no gaps.

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?

No parameters in the schema, baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the returned list includes (requirements and families), compensating for the lack of parameters.

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?

Describes a specific action (list all available trust policies) and includes what the output contains (requirements and families), clearly distinguishing from siblings like ep_trust_evaluate which would evaluate against a policy.

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?

Explicitly states the use case ('discover which policy to evaluate against'), providing clear context for when to invoke this tool, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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