ds_list_policies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it discloses a genuinely important behavioral fact: the server-side PCF envelope is always included, and iRODS does not expose PCF state through PRC, so that portion is 'a documented stub.' That warning usefully tells the agent to distrust part of the output. It omits permission/auth requirements, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loads the core action ('List policies...') and then layers the return-shape and stub caveats. Dense with backticked identifiers but every sentence contributes; only minor tightening is possible.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description does the work of explaining what comes back (policy AVUs plus an always-present PCF envelope that is a stub). It does not describe the AVU record shape or required permissions, but for a single-parameter read tool it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by identifying what the param selects (the single project root whose mesa.policy.* AVUs are returned) and framing those as 'the policies mesa-mcp itself honours,' which clarifies relevance beyond the field's own text.

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 policies in effect for the Data Store') and clarifies what is returned (MESA policy AVUs prefixed mesa.policy.* alongside the PCF envelope). It implicitly separates itself from generic siblings like ds_list_avus by scoping to policy AVUs, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'With project_path, returns...' implies a conditional usage (supply the path to get project-scoped policies), and the schema notes omitting it returns only the envelope. But it never states when to prefer this over ds_get_policy_config or ds_list_avus, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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