List Mangle Rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that rules are returned in evaluation order and supports filtering, which provides additional behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is necessary and no information is redundant. It achieves maximum information density with high readability.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides sufficient information for a simple list operation: the resource type, ordering, and filter capabilities. Given the richness of the annotations and the low complexity of the tool, the description is adequately complete. A brief note on the output format would be beneficial but is not critical for this 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description reinforces that the filters (chain, action, disabled) are available but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal incremental value over the parameter descriptions.

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 specifies the action 'List', the resource 'firewall mangle rules', and the context 'on a MikroTik router in evaluation order'. It also mentions support for filtering by chain, action, and disabled state, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_firewall_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for listing mangle rules, but does not state when not to use it (e.g., for standard firewall rules, use list_firewall_rules). The context of sibling tools provides some differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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