pbi_list_audit_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that results include domain and severity, which is helpful context. However, it does not disclose further behavioral traits such as authentication, rate limits, or exact return structure beyond those fields.

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, compact sentence that immediately communicates the resource and key attributes (domain, severity). It wastes no words and is appropriately front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only catalog tool with readOnlyHint annotation and an output schema, the description is complete. It clearly communicates the purpose and the included fields, making it sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 it is a catalog of available audit rules with their domain and severity, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_list_autofix_rules. It uses a specific resource and conveys the listing nature.

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?

It implies usage as a discovery/preflight tool for audit rules but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as pbi_audit_project or pbi_list_autofix_rules. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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