policy_get_types

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the pagination behavior and the current-org scoping constraint, but says nothing about the shape of returned items, total counts, or whether expandSchema changes the payload.

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?

Three short lines with the purpose front-loaded and no redundant prose. The trailing 'GET /policy/api/policyTypes' line is low value for an agent choosing a tool, but the overall size is appropriate.

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 100% schema coverage and full annotations the basics are covered, but there is no output schema and the description never indicates what a policy type contains or how expandSchema affects the response — an agent still has to guess at the return shape.

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 description coverage is 100% across all 7 parameters, so pagination, sorting and expandSchema semantics are already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'paginated' and adds no format or default-order detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Returns a paginated list of policy types') plus scope ('available in the current org'), which clearly separates it from the sibling policy_get_policy_type_by_id. The distinction is implied by 'list' vs 'by id' rather than stated 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?

'Find all the policy types available in the current org' implies the discovery/enumeration use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus policy_get_policy_type_by_id or policy_get_policy_type_scope_schema, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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