List DLP policies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the underlying command ('pac admin dlp-policy list') and the auth profile dependency. It does not mention output format, pagination, or permission requirements, though the list command implies a read-only operation.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The definition of DLP policies is front-loaded and helpful, followed by the exact command and auth context. Every sentence 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?

The tool is a simple list operation with all parameters self-documented in the schema. The description provides essential context about what DLP policies are and the command executed. It does not describe the return shape, but the tool name and command strongly imply a list of policies, and no output schema exists to set a higher bar.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, 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?

The description clearly states the verb (list) and resource (DLP policies) and adds useful context about what DLP policies are (connector groups that decide which connectors an agent or flow may combine). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling cs_admin_show_dlp_policy, but the command and scope ('in the tenant') make the purpose clear.

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 implies usage: listing all tenant-level DLP policies via a specific pac command. It provides context about the tenant scope and active auth profile, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like cs_admin_show_dlp_policy or when not to use it.

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