list_csps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the tenant-wide scope and filterability, which are more about purpose than behavior; no extra details on pagination, ordering, or response shape are provided.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then states the filtering capability. There is no redundant wording or 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?

For a simple, read-only list tool with all parameters optional and fully described in the schema, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. The only notable gap is the lack of mention of return shape or pagination, but that is minor for this tool.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description broadly mentions filtering by scope, type, and status, which maps to scope, policy_type, and is_active, but does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('políticas de segurança (CSPs) do tenant'), making it clear this is a listing operation. It is distinguishable from the singular get_csp and the computed get_effective_csps by saying it lists all tenant policies, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

The description implies usage: it lists all tenant CSPs with optional filters by scope, type, and status. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like get_csp or get_effective_csps, so some inference is required.

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