aethis_list_rulebooks

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, destructive, idempotent, and openWorld. The description adds what annotations do not: tenant scoping and the API-key requirement. It does not discuss pagination or volume limits, but with annotations carrying the safety profile this is solidly above baseline.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then returns, then usage, then auth and hand-off. The long field enumeration is justified because no output schema exists, though it is denser than strictly necessary.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the return fields, the scope/auth constraint, the triggering intent, and the follow-up tools that consume rulebook_id/slug. An agent has everything needed to call it and use the result.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The enumerated return fields add value but belong to output semantics, not parameters.

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 specific verb+resource ('List rulebooks') and immediately defines the resource ('composed wholes that bridge multiple rulesets'), which distinguishes it from the sibling aethis_list_rulesets without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user asks "what rulebooks exist?"') and a second disambiguation scenario (checking whether several `<ns>/<x>/*` rulesets are bridged into one parent). It also routes forward to aethis_decide and aethis_rulebook_schema.

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