get_redirect_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only safety is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the bare purpose. It does not disclose any details about the response format, whether it returns all rules or only enabled ones, or any edge cases like an unknown shortCode. The description offers no value beyond the annotations and the tool name.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the key action 'List', and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to the purpose. It is optimally concise.

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 read-only tool with two parameters (one required), annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It states what it does. However, it omits any mention of the return value (beyond the implied list) or behavior for invalid inputs, which could be valuable given the absence of an output schema. It is not severely lacking but leaves some gaps.

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 100%: both 'domain' and 'shortCode' have clear descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning. Since the schema already documents the parameters, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not need to repeat but also does not enhance understanding.

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's function: 'List dynamic redirect rules configured for a short URL.' The verb 'List' combined with the resource 'dynamic redirect rules' and the scope 'for a short URL' is specific and unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_redirect_rules' (which modifies rules) and other list tools like 'list_short_urls' (which lists URLs, not rules).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the read-only counterpart to 'set_redirect_rules', nor does it describe any prerequisites (e.g., the short URL must exist) or exclusions. The only implied usage is via the verb 'List', which is insufficient.

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