list_regulations

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds value by explaining the default behavior (only latest versions) and the includeOldVersions option, which is beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose potential limitations such as pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 at two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose, and the second adds the key parameter behavior. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or 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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description sufficiently covers the tool's main behavior and the optional version filter. While it could mention the return structure (e.g., list of regulation names/IDs), the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor gap.

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 already provides a description for the includeOldVersions parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description essentially repeats the parameter's effect (including old versions) without adding further meaning, such as default value implications or edge cases.

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 tool returns the entire list of regulations (한성대학교 규정 전체 목록), using a specific verb '반환합니다' and clearly identifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_regulations, get_regulation, and get_regulation_article by explicitly indicating it returns the full list.

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 the tool is for retrieving the complete list of regulations, contrasting with search or retrieval tools. It states the default behavior (latest versions only) and the optional parameter to include old versions, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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