list_policy_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. "List" implies a non-mutating read operation, and "live" plus "wired into this claims desk" clarify that only active, desk-scoped documents are returned. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, permission requirements, or what metadata is included.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The verb and key qualifiers ("live," "wired into this claims desk") are front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear.

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?

Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values or parameter details. It adequately states what the tool lists and at what scope, though it could be slightly stronger by naming the sibling tools it complements.

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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is nothing to document. The description adds context that the scope comes from the environment ("wired into this claims desk"), which is useful for understanding why no parameters are needed.

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, "List," and identifies the exact resource: "live CMS policy documents wired into this claims desk." This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like read_document_bytes or preview_pdf_pages, which target different resources and operations.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like review_claim_requirements or read_document_bytes. The phrase "wired into this claims desk" implies a scoped context, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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