list_rule_setsList the versioned rule sets in force and formerly in force for a jurisdiction: id, version, hash, effective dates, artifact URL. Never the regulation text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jurisdiction | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule_sets | Yes | ||
| jurisdiction | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the temporal scope ('in force and formerly in force'), the response fields, and the explicit exclusion of regulation text. It gives a clear behavioral contract for a list operation without contradicting the annotations.
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 two compact sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the negative boundary is stated immediately after. Every word contributes to scope or behavioral expectations.
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 tool has a single required enum parameter and an output schema, so return structure is already covered. The description supplies the missing semantic context: what a rule set is, which temporal versions are included, and what is explicitly not returned. This is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 0%, and the only parameter, jurisdiction, is merely referred to as 'for a jurisdiction' in the description. This adds little beyond the schema's enum. However, the parameter name and enum values are reasonably self-explanatory, so the tool remains callable, though special values like 'apex' are not explained.
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-resource pair: 'List the versioned rule sets in force and formerly in force for a jurisdiction' and enumerates the exact fields returned. The negative clause 'Never the regulation text' further disambiguates it from other tools. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_issuers and get_record by content and scope.
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 when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs versioned rule set metadata for a jurisdiction. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with siblings such as list_issuers or resolve_compliance, nor does it state 'use this instead of...'. The 'Never the regulation text' clause is a boundary on output, not usage guidance.
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 targets a clearly distinct operation: retrieving a specific record, listing issuers, listing rule sets, publishing, and resolving current compliance. The only potentially similar pair (get_record vs resolve_compliance) is clearly separated by record_id lookup versus jurisdictional object resolution.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_record, list_issuers, list_rule_sets, publish_record, resolve_compliance. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
Five tools is well-scoped for this regulatory compliance domain, covering read, list, publish, and resolve operations without unnecessary surface area. Each tool earns its place in the workflow.
The suite covers the essential lifecycle: publishing verifiable records, retrieving any record including superseded ones, resolving the current compliance object, and listing the supporting issuers and rule sets. The immutable, audit-oriented design means update/delete are intentionally absent rather than gaps.