List RAI Policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which cover the safety and side-effect profile. The description adds the contextual scope 'your', indicating a user-scoped list, but does not add further behavioral details such as pagination or return format. With annotations present, this is a reasonable baseline.

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 filler. Every word adds meaning: 'List', 'your', 'Responsible-AI guardrail policies'.

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 no-parameter, listing tool with strong annotations, the description is fully complete. It states the exact operation and subject, and there is no hidden complexity requiring additional context.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a tool with 0 parameters receives a baseline of 4. The description correctly indicates no parameters are required.

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 a specific resource ('Responsible-AI guardrail policies'), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like lyzr_rai_create_policy, lyzr_rai_delete_policy, and lyzr_rai_get_policy. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage — list when you want to see your responsible-AI policies — but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like lyzr_rai_get_policy for a single policy. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so it is adequate but not explicit.

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