sentinel_list_policy_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all' implies a read-only operation, which is safe, and the tool name supports that. However, it doesn't disclose pagination, ordering, output format, or whether listing all rules has any performance implications. It's a read operation which is fairly self-evident, but details about result structure are absent.

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?

Two short sentences with zero wasted words. The description states the core purpose and the optional filter in a compact, front-loaded manner. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list tool with one fully-described optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. However, it doesn't mention what a policy rule looks like or any context about which other sentinel tools relate to policy rules (e.g., check_agent_access). The simplicity of the tool means the description covers the essentials, but a brief note on return contents would improve completeness.

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% — the single agentId parameter is fully described ('Filter rules by agent ID'). The description adds marginal value by mentioning it first in prose, but the schema already documents it completely. The baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting for the single parameter.

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), resource (RBAC policy rules), and optional filter (by agent ID). It distinguishes from siblings like sentinel_add_policy_rule and sentinel_remove_policy_rule since those are mutation operations while this is a read/list operation, though it doesn't explicitly call out that distinction.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The tool name and description imply it's for viewing policies, and the optional agentId filter suggests targeted queries, but there's no mention of when to filter vs. list all, nor any reference to sibling tools like sentinel_get_review_queue or sentinel_query_ledger that might also be relevant in certain contexts.

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