pmg_ruledb_rule_when_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It declares the tool is 'READ-ONLY' and states it returns 'a list of object dicts.' It does not disclose error behavior or what happens if the rule ID is invalid. While the read-only nature is clear, additional behavioral details like error responses are missing.

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 with three sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and read-only nature. The second describes the return type and source of the ID. The third provides sibling tool references. No unnecessary words, and critical information is front-loaded.

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 complexity of the PMG ruleDB ecosystem, the description adequately covers essential aspects: read-only nature, configuration requirement, return type, and relationship to sibling tools. An output schema exists, so return structure is documented elsewhere. However, error handling and default behavior for missing rules are not mentioned, leaving slight gaps.

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 schema already describes both parameters. The description adds context for the id_ parameter by specifying it comes from pmg_ruledb_rules_list and giving an example ('e.g. '100''), but does not add significant meaning for the proximo_target parameter. This extra context marginally improves understanding, thus a score 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 states the tool's purpose: 'list the 'when' objects attached to a PMG RuleDB rule.' It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('when objects'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by naming alternatives like pmg_ruledb_rule_what_list and the from/to/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 provides guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives by explicitly naming pmg_ruledb_rule_what_list for the 'what' side and the from/to/actions counterparts for the rest. It also mentions the prerequisite 'PROXIMO_PMG_* config' and the need to obtain the rule ID from pmg_ruledb_rules_list. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or provide a comprehensive usage context.

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