List MagicSword policies

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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds real domain context beyond that: it explains that the current_version block separates status (audit/enforcing/disabled) from policy_mode (blocklist/strict), which is non-obvious semantics an agent could not infer. It does not mention pagination or result-size behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and what each entry holds, then the filter condition, then field interpretation. No filler, though the final sentence is slightly dense and could be tighter.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully describes the returned current_version block and its two status dimensions, which compensates well. Gaps remain around pagination, total counts, and how to proceed after listing (e.g., show_policy or manage_policy_rules), but the core need is met.

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% and the single platform parameter is fully documented with an enum in the schema. The description only restates the filtering intent ('if you only care about windows/macos/linux') without adding syntax or edge-case meaning, 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 gives a specific verb (Lists) and resource (policies) plus org scope and enumerates what each entry contains (name, version, status, policy_mode). It is clear enough to distinguish a plural listing from the singular show_policy sibling, but it never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts listing vs. fetching a single policy.

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?

Usage context is only implied: 'Filter by platform if you only care about windows/macos/linux' tells when to use the parameter, not when to use this tool over show_policy, list_events, or other siblings. There is no statement of when-not-to-use or of alternative listing tools.

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