list_business_ruleset_revisions

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

The description discloses that only locked revisions are listed, a key behavioral detail not captured by annotations. Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent, so the added context about locked revisions is valuable and non-contradictory.

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 clear sentence with zero filler. It is front-loaded and efficient, conveying all necessary information without waste.

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 operation with an output schema present, this description is sufficient. It identifies the core purpose and relies on the schema for field details. It could optionally mention ordering or pagination nuances, but that is not critical given the output schema.

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 provides comprehensive descriptions for both parameters (ruleset_id and limit), covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no extra parameter details, but the schema already supplies needed context, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (list) and the resource (locked revisions of a rule set), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_business_rulesets or get_business_ruleset. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is appropriate after lock_business_ruleset_revision or how it differs from listing all revisions. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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