List Header Policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: it returns ids, priorities, and rowVersions intended for changing policies, and requires project context. It also clarifies this is a listing of policy objects, not resolved header values. Minor gaps remain (e.g., pagination), but the description meaningfully supplements the read-only annotation.

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 with zero waste. Core function is front-loaded, followed by return value summary and sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, level options, specId requirement, project context prerequisite, and when to use sibling tools. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters: level accepts 'spec' or 'project', and specId is required for level 'spec'. The description restates the specId requirement and adds the functional purpose of the returned fields, but no significant parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the header policies defined at one level: spec or project.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it lists policy objects, while get_header_policies is for the resolved cascade and get_resolved_headers for one response. An agent can tell exactly what this 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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'for the resolved header cascade on an endpoint use get_header_policies, for one response get_resolved_headers.' It also states prerequisites: specId needed for level 'spec' and requires project context. No inference needed.

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