List Business Ruleset Revisions

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add semantic scope. The 'locked revisions' qualifier provides useful context beyond the schema, and nothing in the description contradicts 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place by communicating the action, resource, and scope.

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 is simple, annotations are rich, parameter schema is fully described, and an output schema exists. The main gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation and pagination clarity, but the schema and annotations compensate for most of the missing context.

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%, so the schema fully documents ruleset_id and limit. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not value-adding at a higher level.

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 a specific verb ('List') and a clearly defined resource ('locked revisions of a rule set'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_business_rulesets and get_business_ruleset by focusing on revision scope rather than the ruleset itself.

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 usage context is implied: an agent would call this when it needs the revision history of a ruleset. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing, such as using list_business_rulesets for current rulesets or get_business_ruleset for a single ruleset.

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