list_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the tool is read-only (likely), authentication requirements (e.g., api_key), or error behavior for missing/invalid tenant_id. The minimal description does not meet the burden.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core functionality without superfluous words. Every word serves a purpose, and the condition is clearly expressed.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic functionality. However, it omits important context like error handling, expected input formats, and the role of api_key, leaving gaps for a simple 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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to tenant_id (controls rule scope) but completely ignores api_key, leaving its purpose unexplained. This partial coverage is insufficient.

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 action (list), the resource (rules), and distinguishes built-in vs custom based on tenant_id. While it differentiates from siblings like define_custom_rule, the phrasing 'if tenant_id provided' is slightly ambiguous about what is listed when the parameter is absent, preventing a perfect score.

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 like define_custom_rule or scan_log. The description hints at a conditional scope but does not provide when-not criteria or compare with siblings, leaving an agent to infer usage.

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