list_business_rules

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds one behavioral trait: the requirement for SCRIPTING_ENABLED to be true, which is valuable context not covered by annotations. It does not disclose other behaviors like pagination or result structure, but the annotations cover the primary safety aspects.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key constraint. It is front-loaded and non-redundant. However, it could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose, such as mentioning the optional filtering parameters.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should ideally mention what the tool returns (e.g., a list of business rule objects) or any default pagination behavior. It only states the action and a prerequisite. The sibling list is large, and this tool is one of many list tools, so the missing output details may cause uncertainty for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters ('table', 'active', 'limit') with descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context for these parameters; it simply restates the prerequisite. Hence, the description adds no extra value beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'business rules', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It also adds a specific prerequisite condition, which is helpful for the agent. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_business_rule' (single retrieval) and 'update_business_rule' (mutation).

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 a key prerequisite ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which is useful for usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_business_rule' for a single rule), nor does it mention when not to use it. The usage is implied but not fully guided.

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