List rules

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the return structure: condition formats (flat AND list or when tree), verdict, salience, asserted facts, edges with forward-chaining semantics, citation purpose, and overlap warnings. This gives an agent a thorough understanding of what to expect from the tool.

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?

Five sentences pack a high density of information without fluff. Front-loaded with the primary action, each subsequent sentence adds meaningful semantics (return fields, edges, citation, overlap warnings) and ends with a practical use case. No word is wasted.

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 description fully contextualizes the tool: what it lists, what the output contains, why edges and citations matter, and how the domain parameter behaves. Given the simple schema (1 optional param) and presence of an output schema, this description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 has no parameter description (0% coverage), but the phrase 'one domain (or all domains)' clarifies that the `domain` parameter filters to a specific domain while null/omission means all domains. This is valuable, though it doesn't explicitly name the parameter or mention validation/format.

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 opens with 'List the decision rules for one domain (or all domains),' clearly stating a specific verb and resource with a scope qualifier. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like `decide` by positioning it as a read-only listing tool for learning domain expectations, and its focus on rules differentiates it from `list_documents` and `get_rule_source`.

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?

Provides a clear when-to-use signal: 'Use this to learn which fact fields a domain expects before calling `decide`.' This explicitly ties the tool to a pre-decision workflow, but it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives for related operations like retrieving the original policy text (get_rule_source).

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