list_policies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('List of policies with their statements and state'), which adds some value, but fails to cover critical aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling for a list operation in a cloud environment.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic operation and parameter semantics, but lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination or error handling, which are important for an IAM policy listing in a cloud context.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter ('compartment_id: OCID of the compartment to list policies from'), explaining its purpose beyond the schema's basic title. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail format constraints like OCID structure or validation rules.

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 ('all IAM policies in a compartment'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_policy' or other list tools, which slightly limits its clarity in a crowded toolset.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_policy' or other list tools. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as required permissions or compartment structure, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific use cases.

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