list_protection_policies

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

The description clearly indicates this is a read-only listing operation, which is appropriate. However, since no annotations are provided, it would benefit from mentioning any potential performance implications or limits, but as a simple list, the current transparency is good.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys all essential information without any unnecessary words.

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?

Given that the tool has only one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and output. It could mention pagination or result limits, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a list operation.

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 provides a clear description for the single optional 'name' parameter. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so with 100% schema coverage, 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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'protection policies', and specifies that it includes schedule, retention, and replication settings. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_protection_groups or list_protection_runs.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context from sibling tool names.

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