rules_list

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it lists all business rules, implying a read-only operation, but omits details about pagination, limits, or output format. The description is insufficient for understanding side effects or constraints.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is concise and directly conveys the tool's action. Every word earns its place.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides basic understanding. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'alarms_rules_list', and omits any mention of scope or limitations, leaving some ambiguity about what 'business rules' encompasses.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, which is acceptable. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from this.

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 'List all business rules' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (business rules), fulfilling the basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'rules_get' or 'alarms_rules_list', which could cause ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'rules_get' (for a specific rule) or 'alarms_rules_list' (for alarm-specific rules). The description implies a generic listing scenario but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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