list_alert_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 states the tool lists policies and returns specific fields (ID, name, incident preference settings), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only (though 'List' implies safe read). The description adds basic context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, optional filtering, and return values. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 read-only listing tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but has gaps. It doesn't explain the return format beyond field names, doesn't mention pagination or ordering, and provides no context about error conditions or performance characteristics. With no annotations and no output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (nameFilter and limit). The description mentions 'optional name filtering' which aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the parameter descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('NewRelic alert policies') with specific scope ('with optional name filtering'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_alert_conditions' by focusing on policies rather than conditions, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 for retrieving alert policies with optional filtering, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_alert_conditions' or 'search_entity_with_tag'. It mentions the optional name filter but doesn't specify scenarios where filtering is necessary or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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