list_policies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists all policies organized by section, which is transparent enough for a simple read operation. However, it does not disclose potential pagination, rate limits, or data volume, which could be relevant for an agent.

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 a single sentence with no filler. Every word adds value: 'list all available' sets scope, 'ASF policy documents' identifies the resource, 'organised by section' provides structure. It is optimally concise.

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?

Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does (list all policies by section) and nothing more is needed for correct invocation. Sibling tools provide additional context for differentiation.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the input schema coverage is 100% (empty). According to guidelines, the baseline score is 4 when no parameters exist. The description adds no param info because none are needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'all available ASF policy documents'. It also adds organization detail 'by section', which differentiates it from siblings like 'get_policy' (single document) and 'search_policies' (filtered search).

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 when to use the tool (when you need all policies organized by section) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Given sibling names, context is inferred but not stated, so the score is neutral.

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