list_decrees

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers the key behavioral facts: the operation is read-only and universally permitted. It also discloses the default scope ('active'), implying inactive decrees are excluded unless requested via the parameter. It omits minor details like ordering, pagination, and empty-result behavior, but these are not critical for a simple listing tool.

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 a single compact sentence with zero filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and each trailing element — the field enumeration and the read-only/anyone-may-call note — adds distinct value. 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?

For a low-complexity tool (one optional boolean, no output schema, no nested objects), the field list effectively serves as the return contract and the read-only note covers the safety profile in the absence of annotations. The remaining gap is that the include_inactive parameter is never explicitly explained, and behavior for empty result sets or non-governing decrees is unaddressed. Overall, nearly complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the single boolean parameter is documented nowhere in structured data. The description's 'active' qualifier implies the default behavior and hints at the include_inactive toggle, but it never explicitly states that setting include_inactive=true returns inactive decrees. The parameter's self-explanatory name softens the gap, but the description itself adds only partial semantic value.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the active governing decrees,' and enumerates the returned fields (id, text, scope, enforcement, rules), which makes the tool's function unambiguous. The scope qualifier 'active' and the read-only note add precision. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like add_decree or seed_decrees, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 'Read-only; anyone may call it' note provides useful selection context, signaling the tool is safe and requires no authorization. However, the description never states when to prefer this over the decree-mutating siblings (add_decree, govern) or when not to use it. Usage guidance is implied by the 'List' verb rather than explicitly articulated.

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