list_ipsec_policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds substantive domain context beyond structured data: the meaning of the `D` dynamic flag and that `ph2-state` indicates whether the child SA is established, which helps the agent interpret a non-obvious result.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the flags legend and filter caveats each earn their place. Minor waste from hard-wrapped lines mid-sentence and the somewhat digressive troubleshooting remark, but nothing gratuitous.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be detailed, yet the description usefully explains the flags and ph2-state semantics. Filter behavior is fully covered; the only omission is the shared `device` parameter, which is likely a server-wide convention.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely delivers: it explains that peer_filter is a substring match on peer name and that dst/src address filters are substring matches on policy selectors (the encapsulated subnets, not the tunnel endpoints). Only the `device` parameter is left undocumented.

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 specific verb and resource ('Lists the IPsec policies, with their phase 2 state'), which is unambiguous about what gets returned. It does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings like list_ipsec_peers, list_ipsec_profiles, or list_ipsec_proposals, so an agent must rely on the resource name alone.

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 rather than stated: the diagnostic note about a policy whose selectors do not match the far end causing a tunnel that 'comes up and passes nothing' signals this is a troubleshooting tool. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or naming of alternative listing tools for peers/proposals is given.

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