List Attribute Rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's addition of '不修改方案' reinforces but largely duplicates that profile, offering little beyond what the annotations state.

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 compact sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the enumerated return contents make it slightly dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in detail, and the description does name the categories of information returned. However, it leaves the dataset_path format entirely undefined, which is the one thing an agent must resolve before calling the tool.

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 0% for the single required parameter dataset_path, and the description says nothing about its expected format (workspace path, feature class, SDE connection) or whether it accepts a layer name. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb (读取) and resource (属性规则) and enumerates what is retrieved — rule list, types, triggers, subtypes, and validation properties. It is clearly distinguishable from mutating siblings like add/delete attribute rules, though it never names them.

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 only guidance is the trailing clause '不修改方案', which implies a read-only inspection context but does not tell the agent when to pick this over export_attribute_rules, list_subtypes, or dataset_schema. No conditions or alternatives are given.

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