Retrieves centralized (vSmart), localized (vEdge), and security policies from Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Manager, with an optional policy_type filter to narrow results.
List centralized (vsmart), localized (vedge) and security policies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policy_type | No | Only this policy type (default: all three) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only states what is listed. It says nothing about read-only nature, permissions required, pagination, result size, or whether the list covers all policies or only configured ones.
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?
One compact sentence with no filler, and the resource plus its three variants are front-loaded. It could have used the remaining space for sibling differentiation instead, but it is not bloated.
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 one optional enum parameter and no output schema or annotations, the definition is minimally sufficient to call the tool but leaves gaps: return shape, whether results are paginated, and how this differs from the other policy-list tools are all unaddressed.
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% and the single enum parameter is fully documented ('Only this policy type (default: all three)'). The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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?
Names a specific verb (list) and resource (policies), and enumerates the three concrete subtypes (vsmart, vedge, security), which is more informative than a bare 'list policies'. However, it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as list_policy_lists, list_policy_definitions, or list_policy_groups, so an agent must guess which of these four to pick.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and none of the similar siblings (list_policy_groups, list_policy_lists, list_policy_definitions) are referenced as alternatives. The default behavior ('all three') is only conveyed implicitly through the schema's parameter description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.