list_policies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are policy records carrying version info, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, pagination behavior, or whether 'all' is truly exhaustive. It is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves clear gaps.

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 Args/Returns layout is compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. No sentence is wasted, though the Returns line duplicates what the output schema already provides.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description correctly stays brief. But given a sibling-heavy toolset and no annotations, it should at least state the tool's scope relative to list_pending_policy_acknowledgments.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate and it barely does: 'limit: Max results' essentially restates the parameter name. It omits the default of 50 and any guidance on acceptable ranges or pagination interaction.

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 all company policies'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. However, it does not differentiate from siblings such as list_pending_policy_acknowledgments or list_controls, so the agent must infer scope from the name alone. 'All' also sits awkwardly beside a limit parameter.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling list_* tools, nor any prerequisite or context. The description never states that this is the unfiltered policy inventory and that acknowledgment data lives in list_pending_policy_acknowledgments.

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