List Row Level Security Policies

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, safe operation. The description adds significant value by detailing that it shows both policies and their expressions, and even tables without policies. This helps the agent predict output and side effects beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by clear Args and Returns sections, and a helpful note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully details return formats (JSON and Markdown) including fields like PolicyInfo, count, rls_enabled_tables. It also notes edge case behavior (empty policies). This is complete for a read-only listing tool.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description restates the parameter names and defaults but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 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?

Description clearly states it lists all RLS policies in a schema, including USING and WITH CHECK expressions. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('RLS policies'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pg_list_grants or pg_list_indexes.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to inspect RLS policies), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. Since it's the only tool for policies among siblings, usage is implied, but lacks explicit guidance.

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