list_business_ruleset_revisions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool returns 'all locked revisions', clarifying the scope (only locked, not draft or all revisions). However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as pagination behavior, ordering, or what constitutes a 'locked' revision. This is a minimal but not misleading disclosure.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation and earns every word it uses.

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?

The tool has a simple read-only nature, an output schema, and fully documented parameters, so the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks any contextual framing, such as what locked revisions represent or that this tool complements lock_business_ruleset_revision. The description is minimally viable but leaves the agent to infer the broader workflow.

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 100% (both ruleset_id and limit have descriptions). The main description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The schema already clarifies that ruleset_id is a UUID, not a name, and that limit caps results.

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 'List all locked revisions of a rule set' uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('locked revisions of a rule set'), and adds the qualifier 'locked' which distinguishes this from listing rulesets themselves (list_business_rulesets) and from listing decision flow revisions. It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when one needs to enumerate revisions after locking one, or how this relates to lock_business_ruleset_revision. There is no mention of prerequisites or context (e.g., 'Use this after locking a revision'). The only usage hint is buried in the schema for ruleset_id, not in the description.

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