list_constraints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. It does disclose one real behavioral trait: retired rules exist and are excluded from the default listing. It says nothing about permissions, result size, ordering, or pagination, which an agent calling a list tool would want.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The aphoristic second sentence is memorable and does work, but is slightly obscure in a way that trades precision for style.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a single-parameter list tool that is roughly adequate, but the description leaves an agent unsure what a 'constraint' is, how many there are, or how this relates to the surrounding constraint tools.

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 parameter 'include_inactive' is undescribed. The sentence 'Retired rules are history, not truth' implies what 'inactive' means and that it is off by default, partially compensating, though the framing is exhortative rather than a clear definition of the flag's effect.

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 gives a verb+resource ('List standing rules'), but renames the resource as 'rules' rather than 'constraints' and never defines what a constraint actually is. Against siblings like list_entities, list_threads, and list_records it does not make clear why this list is different beyond the active/retired distinction.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives such as set_constraint, retire_constraint, or read_memory. The second sentence only hints, obliquely, that retired rules exist and are probably not wanted by default, which is guidance about the parameter rather than about selecting the tool.

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