list_regulationsList AI regulations and their compliance status (EU AI Act, ISO 42001, and more), including jurisdiction, effective dates, key requirements, and fines.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| jurisdiction | No | Jurisdiction substring, e.g. "european", "israel" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states the tool lists regulations and mentions output fields, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, pagination, or whether it is read-only. Minimal transparency beyond the core purpose.
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?
Single, clear sentence that is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. No wasted words.
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?
The description covers the main output fields and purpose. Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, it is mostly complete for a list tool with simple parameters. Minor gaps: no mention of pagination, sorting, or limit behavior.
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 coverage is 100% (both parameters described), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. The parameters (status, jurisdiction) are fairly self-explanatory, and the description does not elaborate on their usage or format.
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 clearly states it lists AI regulations and compliance status, including specific regulations (EU AI Act, ISO 42001) and fields (jurisdiction, effective dates, key requirements, fines). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like get_latest_news (news), list_releases (releases), and search_glossary (glossary).
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 for listing regulations, and siblings are unrelated, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: news, regulations, releases, and glossary. There is no functional overlap, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_*, list_*, search_*), with clear and predictable naming.
With 4 tools, the set is compact yet sufficiently covers the core information needs for a GenAI briefing server.
The tools cover news, regulations, releases, and glossary, but lack a tool for generating briefings or summaries, which would be a natural addition for a briefing server.