jevlab_list_rubrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond that: exactly ten results and an Apache-2.0 public licensing scope. It does not discuss caching, versioning, or the shape of the returned templates.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word (ten, public, Apache-2.0) carries information. Nothing could be trimmed without losing detail.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries some burden of describing what comes back. It discloses count and license but not the structure or fields of a rubric template, which an agent would need to act on the results. Adequate but leaves a clear 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain argument semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('rubric templates') with useful scope qualifiers: 'ten', 'public', 'Apache-2.0'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jevlab_bench or jevlab_calibrate, though it never explicitly names a sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to enumerate the built-in rubric templates. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or caveat (e.g., whether these are the only rubrics available).

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