list_policy_violations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no contradicting behavior. It does add the filtering semantics (only noncompliant/pending, fleet-wide), but does not disclose other behavioral details like pagination or sorting, which are likely covered by the output schema.

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 fragment, which is highly concise and front-loads the core message. The trailing phrase 'the open risks' adds interpretive value but is slightly redundant with 'NonCompliant / Pending', so it is not perfectly tight.

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 zero-parameter, filtered list tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand what the tool returns and why it exists. It could explicitly mention complementing list_policies, but the current level of detail is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters.

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 tool returns only noncompliant or pending policy-cluster pairs across the fleet, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_policies. The verb 'list' is implied by the tool name, but the scope and resource are clearly defined.

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 surfacing open risks by mentioning 'NonCompliant / Pending' and 'open risks', but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It relies on the agent to infer that this tool is a filtered subset of list_policies.

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