list_guardrail_policies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses non-obvious traits: page-numbered rather than cursor-based pagination, page_size capped at 100, and search as a substring match on policy name. It does not state read-only status or return shape, but 'List' strongly implies a safe read.

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 short and front-loaded: purpose first, then filters, pagination mechanics, and the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 three-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, filtering, pagination, cap, and the sibling retrieval tool. It could mention the return shape or required permissions, but it is otherwise 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all three parameters meaningfully: search is a substring match on policy name, page is a page number to advance through results, and page_size is capped at 100. Defaults are left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List guardrail policies') and clarifies what those policies are ('input/output detector configurations'). It also names the sibling tool get_guardrail_policy for full detail, letting an agent distinguish listing from retrieval without opening schemas.

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 directs agents to get_guardrail_policy for full detail and explains filtering via search plus page-number pagination. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the alternative and paging conditions are clear.

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