aethis_list_rulesets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. Because there is no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so concretely by naming every returned field, including the non-obvious 'version history' and the active/archived status values. It leaves the unusual idempotentHint=false unaddressed, and mentions no pagination behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence states the action and scope, followed by a compact enumeration of returned fields. The inline UK citizenship example is mildly verbose but genuinely clarifying for the 'name' field, so it largely earns its place.

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 does the necessary work of enumerating return fields, which makes it adequate for a one-parameter read tool. The gaps are the lack of differentiation from aethis_discover_rulesets and any statement about result size or pagination.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents project_id fully. The description adds only the loose phrase 'for a project' and contributes no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource (list rulesets) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains — ID, name, status, version, field count, rule count. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling aethis_discover_rulesets, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 says the tool operates 'for a project' but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing away from alternatives such as aethis_discover_rulesets or aethis_list_rulebooks. The agent must infer the choice from the name alone.

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