list_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It includes '[READ]' to indicate the operation is non-mutating, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, auth requirements, or return format, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. It leads with the core purpose, then lists each parameter with clear semantics. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail, earning a top score.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and parameters well. It lacks an explicit statement about the return structure, but given the simplicity and the clear 'list' nature, this is a minor gap. The read indicator partially compensates for absent annotations.

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 description adds substantial meaning to both parameters. "rule_type: Filter by 'alerting' or 'recording'; omit for both" explains allowed values and default behavior, while "target: Prometheus target name from config; omit for the default" clarifies the source and default. The schema only provides types and defaults, so this is a significant improvement.

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 tool returns 'All recording + alerting rules', with optional filtering by type. This is a specific resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_silences or list_targets, which cover different resources.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage hint is in the argument descriptions (e.g., 'omit for both'), but there is no direct selection guidance or comparison with sibling tools.

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