List policies

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds genuinely new context: a 60 requests/minute/key rate limit, the auth requirement (any non-revoked API key), and the sort order of results. It does not describe error or pagination behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and endpoint, then behavior and constraints. Every sentence carries distinct information (endpoint, return shape, auth, rate limit) with no redundancy.

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 parameterless read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition supplies everything an agent needs: endpoint, authenticated-access rule, rate limit, and result ordering. Nothing material is 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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is empty and fully covered. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 organization policies as code') and pins the underlying endpoint (GET /v1/policies), which clearly separates it from mutating siblings like plan_policy_changes. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or stating when this read is preferred over test_policies.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only list semantics and the note that any non-revoked API key may call it, which tells the agent it needs no special scope. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or routing to a sibling such as test_policies or plan_policy_changes.

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