action1_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 does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention pagination behavior, response size limits, or org scoping beyond the parameter descriptions. The phrase 'configured in the tenant' adds slight context but is insufficient.

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 that is direct, informative, and free of unnecessary elaboration. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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 simple list operation with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description adequately explains the resource and scope. It could mention read-only behavior or how it relates to policy results, but the output schema and parameter documentation fill most gaps, making it sufficiently complete.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (limit and org_id) including defaults, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 resource ('policy instances') with a clarifying parenthetical ('deployments and remediations configured in the tenant'), which clearly states what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like action1_get_policy_results, which focuses on results rather than instances.

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, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use from the name and sibling context.

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