list_judgementsRetrieve this edition's enterprise judgements, including each label, condition, evidence, action, trade-off, review timing, and related entries, to assess enterprise plans against the radar.
This edition's enterprise judgements: for each, the enterprise label, the condition, the evidence, the action, the trade-off, when to review it and the related entries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2026.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by scoping results to 'this edition' and describing the per-judgement record structure, though it omits ordering, pagination, or completeness details.
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 definition is a single efficient sentence with the scope front-loaded and the field list earning its space. The colon-list style is slightly cramped, but there is no redundant wording.
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 appropriately enumerates the returned fields and states the edition scope. Annotations cover safety behavior, and the remaining gaps around ordering or result size are minor for a zero-parameter list tool.
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 the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, and the schema is empty as expected.
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 states the specific scope ('This edition's enterprise judgements') and enumerates the fields each judgement contains. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the resource is distinct enough from contribution and radar tools to support correct selection.
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?
Usage is implied: use this to retrieve this edition's enterprise judgements. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings such as get_entry or search_radar, nor any statement of when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.