list_ui_policies

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that the tool requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true, a behavioral prerequisite not covered by annotations. It also explains what UI policies are, giving agents insight into the data structure. No contradictions.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states 'List UI Policies for a table' and adds context in parentheses. No redundancy, all information earns its place. Very concise.

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 list tool with three optional parameters and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and data type. The input schema handles parameter details. It lacks mention of default ordering or pagination, but is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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?

Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions. The description only mentions 'for a table,' which aligns with the table parameter but does not add semantics for active or limit. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 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 clearly states the tool lists UI policies for a table, specifying the types of rules (field visibility, mandatory, read-only). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_acls or list_business_rules, which deal with different resources.

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 specifies the tool lists UI policies for a table and includes a prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true). It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like get_ui_policy, but the verb 'list' vs 'get' provides implicit differentiation.

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