Ucontrol Read Schema Ire Rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds the context that this operates on 'Schema API' and 'for an asset kind,' which is a mild scoping clarification but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as return format, error conditions, or rate limits.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and scoped context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 single parameter, read-only annotations, and simple nature of the tool, the description is sufficient. It clearly states what is read and the scope. The lack of an output schema is not a significant gap because the tool is a simple read, and annotations cover safety. Slightly more detail about the rules' structure would push it higher, but it is complete for typical usage.

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 fully documents the sole parameter 'kind' with description 'Asset kind,' so schema coverage is 100%. The description's phrase 'for an asset kind' adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain allowed values, relationships, or usage nuances, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a read operation for Identification/Reconciliation Engine rules scoped to an asset kind. The 'Schema API' prefix distinguishes it from the sibling tool ucontrol_read_umap_ire_rules, which likely targets umap instead. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that leaves little ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this reads schema-level rules while ucontrol_read_umap_ire_rules handles umap rules, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Users must infer usage from the tool naming alone.

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