list_policies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the policy object shape (name, scope, condition, action), the possible actions (block/warn/allow), and the important default that no configured policies means nothing is blocked. It does not explicitly state read-only/non-mutating behavior, but the verdict-attachment and default semantics are non-obvious context an agent needs.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource identity before the fields and the usage routing. Every clause adds information — definition, structure, default behavior, and the sibling relationship — 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, yet the description still usefully summarizes the fields. For a no-param read tool it covers purpose, behavior defaults, and cross-tool routing, leaving an agent nothing essential 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no per-parameter semantics to convey; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to call it correctly, and it introduces no misleading parameter hints.

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 the operator's standing enforcement policies') and immediately characterizes what a policy is: name, scope, condition, action. It distinguishes itself from preflight_query and suggest_query by explaining those already apply policies while this one only enumerates them.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('call this to explain to a user WHY a query was blocked') and implicitly rules out using it as a check step by noting that preflight_query and suggest_query already apply the policies and attach the verdict. The when and the alternatives are both present.

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