list_bpa_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only list operation and details the output fields. However, it does not explicitly state that it is side-effect-free or otherwise disclose any potential behavioral nuances, though the nature of listing inherently suggests no state changes.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every clause adds meaningful information: the output fields, the optional filter, and the cross-reference to run_bpa/fix_bpa. There is 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?

The description is complete for the primary purpose: it lists the output fields, supports filtering, and connects to sibling tools. The only notable omission is the role of sessionId, which is not explained in the description or schema. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is a minor gap, but it prevents a perfect score.

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 only 50% (category has a description, sessionId does not). The description adds minimal value for category by noting it's an optional filter, but fails to explain sessionId at all. Since half of the parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, the parameter semantics are insufficient.

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 the BPA rule catalogue') and identifies the resource, while enumerating the specific fields returned (id, category, severity, scope, fixable flag, TOM property, description). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly referencing run_bpa and fix_bpa for subsequent actions.

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 provides direct usage guidance: 'Use the IDs with run_bpa (ruleIds) and fix_bpa (ruleId).' It also implies when to use the tool ('so you can see coverage') and how to filter ('Optionally filter to one category'), effectively steering the agent toward this tool before applying rules.

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