list-style-rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output metadata fields (id, name, language, timestamps) and the relationship to translation contexts. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default values, or the effect of the 'detailed' parameter on the response, which are relevant behavioral aspects for a list endpoint.

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 three sentences long and every sentence adds value: the first defines the purpose and return fields, the second gives context, and the third directs users to the appropriate single-rule tool. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (metadata fields). It also provides enough context for a simple list tool with optional pagination parameters that are well-documented in the input schema. A slightly higher score would require more detail on pagination defaults or the precise behavior of the 'detailed' flag, but the schema already covers those.

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?

All three parameters are already described in the JSON schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, but it doesn't need to because the schema descriptions are sufficient.

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 lists style rules with specific metadata fields (id, name, language, timestamps) and explicitly distinguishes it from get-style-rule, which fetches details for a single rule. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiated from sibling tools.

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 explains that style rules are used in translation and points users to get-style-rule for fetching a single rule's configured rules and instructions. It provides clear context for when to use this listing tool versus the alternative, though it doesn't mention all potential sibling tools or edge cases like pagination usage.

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