List AI Governance Units

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's read-only listing is aligned. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the return fields ('id, slug, category, name and summary') and the scope ('all'), which goes beyond the annotations.

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 accomplish the task: the first defines the tool's output and content, the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words; information is front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, full schema documentation, and an output schema, the description covers the essential points: scope, contents, and when to use it. The tool's simplicity means the description is sufficiently complete.

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 fully documents the single optional `locale` parameter with a description and enum, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Schema coverage is 100%, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 'List all AI governance units' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates examples (EU AI Act, ISO 42001) and return fields. It also distinguishes from sibling `search` by stating when to browse vs. search for obligations/controls.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to browse the regulations and standards; use `search` for an obligation or control.' This provides clear usage context and an alternative, fulfilling the dimension.

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