get_automation_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety. However, the description itself adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination behavior, whether inactive rules are included, or any response format details. It purely restates the obvious from 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, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the tool's action and subject.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks detail about what the returned rules contain or whether any scoping/filtering is possible. It does not mislead, but it leaves room for ambiguity about the result set.

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 schema description coverage is 100% for the only parameter 'limit', which is documented with a default. The tool description does not mention or elaborate on this parameter, so it adds no value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource: 'automation and workflow rules configured in Guesty.' This distinctly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from all sibling tools, none of which mention automation 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 implies usage (if you need automation rules, use this), but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no context on prerequisites or typical scenarios. It is adequate but not instructive.

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