Lists named local optimization policies using local data only, so you can review available policies without credentials or account access.
List named local optimization policies without credentials or account data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | payload | |
| error | No | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| rateLimit | No | ||
| pagination | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that no credentials or account data are involved, but "local" sits in mild tension with openWorldHint=true and the description says nothing about ordering, scope of the returned policy set, or whether results are cached.
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 short sentence with the operation and its key qualifier front-loaded; nothing is repeated from the title or annotations and there is no filler.
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 zero parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema handling the return shape, the description carries nearly everything an agent needs. It could still note whether the list is scoped to an account/profile or what identifies a policy, but nothing essential 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 the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly implies no inputs are required by presenting the call as a bare listing.
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 clear verb and resource ("List named local optimization policies") and adds a scope qualifier ("without credentials or account data"). It is distinguishable from the read-only sibling optimization_policy_get by being a listing operation, though the description never names that sibling to sharpen the contrast.
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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the enumeration step before calling optimization_policy_get for details. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against optimization_baseline/optimization_history/optimization_plan is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.