SCA policy scores for an agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this by describing a listing operation that returns counts and scores without side effects, adding useful output-behavior detail without contradicting the annotations.

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 tight sentences: the first states the action and output, the second gives the intended use case. Every word adds value and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 the simple single-parameter input and the existence of an output schema, the description provides enough context: what the tool lists, the key output fields (pass/fail counts and hardening scores), why it is used, and how it relates to later drill-down. Nothing essential is missing.

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 only parameter, agent_id, is fully covered by the schema with a type, title, and description. The description adds a concrete example ('001') and ties the parameter to the agent whose policies will be listed, which is sufficient for a simple required identifier.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the exact resource: an agent's Security Configuration Assessment policies with pass/fail counts and hardening scores. It explicitly distinguishes this from deeper individual checks by noting it is the precursor to 'drilling into individual failed checks'.

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?

Clearly states when to use this tool: to answer 'how well hardened is this host' and to do so 'before drilling into individual failed checks'. This gives explicit usage context and implies that deeper investigation belongs to a different tool.

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