policy_policy_assignments__list_policy_assignments

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating that this is a list endpoint; it does not mention pagination, filter-merging behavior, or anything about the returned data. This earns limited credit because annotations carry the safety profile.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording, and the endpoint notation is compact. It is appropriately sized, though it could have used its brevity to add one useful routing or behavior note.

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 endpoint with eight optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but omits useful context about filtering, pagination, and the relationship between policyUuid and policyUuids. The annotations and fully described schema make it minimally adequate, but the description itself leaves meaningful gaps.

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 fully documents all eight optional parameters, including pagination controls, policy filters, target filters, and the local field-projection option. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which fits the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "List policy assignments," and scopes it to those "available to the caller." It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_policy_assignment or list_policies, so it misses a perfect score.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It merely implies the tool should be used to enumerate policy assignments, without explaining when to prefer it over get_policy_assignment or other policy listing tools.

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