knowbe4_policies_list

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list/read operation (which is safe), but doesn't describe pagination behavior beyond what the schema already covers, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if there are no policies. It adds minimal context beyond the obvious 'returns policy info'.

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, efficient sentence that covers purpose and key returned fields. It's front-loaded and wastes no words. Could arguably be scored 5, but there's a small opportunity to mention pagination or the distinction from the get variant, so a slight deduction is warranted.

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?

This is a straightforward list tool with 0 required parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential purpose and return fields adequately. However, for a paginated list tool it doesn't explain return structure for the empty case or page exhaustion, and with no annotations there's a gap on what constitutes the complete response. Given the low complexity of the tool, this is minimally viable though not rich.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (page, per_page) with reasonable descriptions including defaults and max. The tool description itself adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('List all security policies') and details the returned fields (policy names, status, acknowledgment requirements). It's clear about the core function, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools beyond the obvious (e.g., knowbe4_policies_get is the detail grabber, this is the list view). The purpose is well-understood.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that knowbe4_policies_get exists for fetching a single policy's detail, nor does it explain any context like whether this lists all organization-wide policies or just accessible ones. No exclusions or alternative references are made.

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