rules_list_subclass_option_groups

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope ('every...found in the ingested data'), the grouping ('one tag family per class'), and the data source ('exact GrantItem data, not parsed from prose'). While it implies a read-only list operation, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or other behavioral constraints.

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 moderately long but every sentence earns its place: it gives the purpose with examples, clarifies the grouping and importance, differentiates from a sibling, and provides forward guidance. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses concrete examples throughout without redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It describes what is returned, why the tool is needed, how it relates to other tools, and what to do next. It even notes the data source and the 'grants' field behavior without over-explaining since the output schema exists.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially), so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context by explaining that the output tags are intended as inputs to `rules_list_subclass_options`, but since there are no parameters, there is nothing more to clarify.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List every subclass-style choice-group tag found in the ingested data', followed by concrete examples. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with `build_list_classes` and pointing to `rules_list_subclass_options` as the next step.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'nothing else in this server can enumerate them', and provides an alternative exclusion: `build_list_classes` only returns a flat baseline. It also gives direct usage instructions by telling the caller to invoke `rules_list_subclass_options` with a returned tag.

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