decisionRequirements_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it explains the domain concept (DRDs as dependencies between decision tables), it provides no operational details such as pagination behavior, maximum result limits, sorting options, or what fields are returned in the response. A list operation with zero parameters should ideally clarify if it returns all items unfiltered.

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 consists of two highly efficient sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the action and resource (List deployed DRDs), and the second provides essential domain context defining what DRDs represent. Every word earns its place.

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 zero parameters and a simple list operation, the description adequately covers the essential domain context by explaining what DRDs are. However, without an output schema, it should ideally describe the return structure (e.g., that it returns metadata about deployed definitions) or mention that results are unfiltered. It meets minimum requirements but leaves operational 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?

The input schema contains zero parameters. According to scoring guidelines, this establishes a baseline of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation, though it could have explicitly noted that no filtering is available.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('deployed Decision Requirements Definitions') and clarifies the domain concept (DRDs as dependencies between decision tables). This implicitly distinguishes it from sibling 'decision_list' by clarifying that DRDs represent the dependency structure between tables, not the tables themselves, though it does not explicitly name the 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?

The description provides implicit usage guidance by explaining that DRDs describe 'dependencies between decision tables.' This suggests the tool should be used when examining relationships/structure in a DMN model versus retrieving individual decision tables (presumably handled by 'decision_list'). However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' language or direct comparison to alternatives.

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