List AI Governance Units

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, non-mutating behavior is covered. The description adds that the tool returns all governance units and the specific fields, which is useful but does not go beyond what annotations and schema already imply.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff: the first states the action, scope, examples, and returned fields; the second gives the browsing usage and routes to `search` for obligation/control lookup. Every sentence 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 read-only list tool with a single fully documented optional parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is complete. Nothing is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 only parameter, locale, has 100% schema description coverage with an enum and a clear default. The description does not repeat it, which is appropriate because the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 and resource: 'List all AI governance units' and enumerates what those units are (regulations, standards, frameworks, playbooks) with concrete examples. It also states the returned fields (id, slug, category, name, summary), so an agent can clearly distinguish this from sibling list tools.

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 gives the intended use case: 'Use this to browse the regulations and standards.' It also names the alternative and the condition for choosing it: 'use `search` for an obligation or control.' This is clear routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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