rules_list_subclass_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral details. It explains exact tag matching with a concrete example, the return format (full entries including grants and stat_modifiers), and that these fields come from structured GrantItem/ActiveEffectLike data, not prose. This is highly transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then provides necessary rationale and return details. It is longer than the ideal two-sentence summary, but each clause adds value, and the structure is logical and free of filler.

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 tool with one parameter, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, how to use it correctly, what the output contains, and why the design choices were made. The existence of an output schema means the return structure is already documented elsewhere.

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 schema only defines 'tag' as a string with no description. The description compensates by explaining what a valid tag is, pointing to the sibling group tool, and illustrating why exact matching matters with real tag examples. This adds significant meaning 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 every option in a subclass-style choice group by exact tag, distinguishing it from the sibling rules_list_subclass_option_groups. It also specifies that it returns full entries rather than summaries, further clarifying its unique role.

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 references rules_list_subclass_option_groups for valid tag values and explains why exact matching is necessary to avoid missing groups. It warns against guessing class-name-based filters, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the guidance is strong.

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