pmg_ruledb_rule_to_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly declares the tool as 'READ-ONLY' and states it 'Returns a list of object dicts', which adds key behavioral context beyond the name and schema. While it could mention error handling or specific permissions, the read-only nature is clearly communicated.

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 three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: stating read-only and action, specifying a requirement and return type, and providing usage guidance and sibling references. It is appropriately front-loaded with 'READ-ONLY' and contains no superfluous words.

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 (2 parameters, 1 required, with output schema) and the sibling context, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, configuration requirement, parameter source, return type, and alternatives. It is complete enough for effective use, though it could optionally mention behavior when the rule does not exist.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds that id_ comes from pmg_ruledb_rules_list, which provides a meaningful link to another tool's output, slightly expanding on the schema description. The proximo_target parameter is already well-described in the schema, so no additional insight is added. Overall, the description provides marginal value beyond the schema.

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 lists 'to' objects attached to a PMG RuleDB rule, using a specific verb ('list') and resource ('to objects attached to a rule'). It also mentions it is read-only and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming pmg_ruledb_rule_from_list and referencing the what/when/actions counterparts.

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 specifies necessary configuration ('Needs PROXIMO_PMG_* config'), explains the id_ parameter source ('from pmg_ruledb_rules_list'), and explicitly directs when to use alternative tools ('Use pmg_ruledb_rule_from_list for the 'from' side, and the what/when/actions counterparts for the rest'), providing clear context and exclusion guidance.

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