policy.list_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any required authentication, potential side effects, or the format of the returned policy metadata. 'Effective' is left undefined, and the impact of filtering parameters is not addressed.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy, and it front-loads the action and resource. It is concise and well-structured for a simple statement, though it may be too terse given the parameter complexity.

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 tool with four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'effective tool policy metadata' means, what the return structure looks like, or how to use the filters. An agent would have to guess or explore other sources to call it correctly.

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 input schema has zero descriptions for its four parameters, and the description adds nothing about them. There is no explanation of how toolName, riskLevel, requiresApproval, or includeDescriptions affect the output. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate but fails entirely.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('effective tool policy metadata'), and clarifies the purpose for 'MCP clients and approval gates.' It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on device operations, builds, and verification, so an agent can easily differentiate it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any preconditions, when not to use it, or how it relates to other policy-related tools (if any). An agent must infer the appropriate context.

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