rules_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, permission requirements, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only. While listing is inherently non-destructive, the description does not add any behavioral context beyond the bare function.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and clearly separates the two modes (no table vs. table provided). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple schema-listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter effect. It doesn't specify return format or edge cases, but given the low complexity and absence of output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that the 'table' parameter, when provided, lists columns instead of tables. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema (which only says 'string or null'). However, it lacks details like case sensitivity, format expectations, or examples.

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 a specific action ('List') and a specific resource ('tables in the gameplay database, or the columns of one table'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (rules_query, rules_lookup, etc.) which focus on querying data rather than inspecting schema. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and when to use it.

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 implies usage: use it to list tables, or with a table parameter to list columns. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention exclusions. Sibling tools like rules_query are for data retrieval, so the context is clear but no direct guidance is given.

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