vibemap_list_access_rules

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) by detailing the exact contents of the response: table-level rules per persona/role with CRUD flags and structured predicates, page-level rules with predicates, and an advisory reconciliation summary. This fully discloses the tool's output 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?

The description is informative but somewhat lengthy. It front-loads the core action and then provides details in a structured manner. While every sentence adds value, it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 the tool's complexity (listing two types of access rules plus a reconciliation summary) and the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the user can expect. It also provides context on why this tool is needed over its sibling, making it complete for safe 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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'projectId', the description does not add extra semantic details beyond 'The VibeMap project ID'. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides sufficient information.

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 a VibeMap project's access-control rules, detailing table-level and page-level rules with specific permissions and predicates. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'vibemap_get_atomic_blueprint' by noting that this tool provides table-level access control missing from the blueprint.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'to generate correct RLS policies and route/UI authorization' and contrasts it with the atomic blueprint which 'only carries page-level conditions'. This provides clear guidance on its purpose relative to alternatives.

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