List ERDL Rules

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It describes a read-only listing operation with no mention of side effects, which is appropriate for a list action. The behavioral impact is minimal and predictable, fulfilling transparency needs adequately.

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 concise (three sentences) with no wasted words. Each sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidance, and categorization hint. Structure is logical and front-loaded with the core action.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use, and how to categorize results. There is no significant missing information.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a categorization hint ('Categorize by type: ...') that mirrors the enum in the schema but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 the action (list) and resource (ERDL rules). It includes usage examples ('what rules do you have?') and naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like erdl_create_rule or erdl_evaluate which have different purposes.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (when user asks about rules or constraints). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context of sibling names and the examples make the usage scope clear.

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