ncloud_drm_list_policies

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read operation, lowering the bar for behavioral disclosure. The description adds that pagination is supported, a useful behavioral detail, but does not go further to describe response format, defaults, or other nuances, so it makes a modest contribution.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys action, resource, and pagination without a single wasted word. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 straightforward operation with two optional, fully documented parameters and a read-only annotation, the description is adequate. It clearly states the purpose and implies the return is a list, though it does not describe response details since no output schema is present. Slightly more detail about pagination behavior could improve it, but it is not critical.

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 coverage is 100%, with pageNo and pageSize already well-described in the input schema. The description's mention of 'pagination' aligns with these parameters but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline 3.

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 uses a clear action verb ('List') and specific resource ('DRM policies'), with a pagination qualifier that defines scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_policy (single fetch), create/update/delete_policy, and non-DRM policy listing tools via the 'DRM' prefix.

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 phrase 'List DRM policies' implies the primary use case (enumerating policies), and pagination suggests handling large result sets. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives (e.g., 'use get_policy for a single policy') or exclusions, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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