list_dfw_policies

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description adds crucial behavioral context: the response envelope fields, pagination behavior, default limit, and the caution that a page may be truncated. This significantly informs the agent about expected output and necessary follow-up actions.

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 efficiently structured and front-loaded with the action and purpose. It uses bullet-like argument formatting and short, informative sentences. No word is wasted; it covers return envelope, pagination, sibling tools, and all parameters without being verbose.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining return fields and pagination metadata ('returned'/'limit'/'total'/'truncated'/'hint'), which it does thoroughly. It also provides workflow context (sibling tools) and operational warnings, making it complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in plain language: target (default from config), name_filter (substring/glob match), limit (max count, default 50), and offset (skip count). This is exactly what the agent needs to use the parameters correctly.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'List DFW security policies in the default domain.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it returns a list envelope, and contrasts with get_dfw_policy and list_dfw_rules, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Start here' sets it as the entry point. It tells the user to use get_dfw_policy for details and list_dfw_rules for rules, and warns against treating a full page as complete, advising name_filter or pagination. This is clear usage direction beyond just stating purpose.

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