List URL user rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral context: it spans all installation workspaces rather than one, performs no source fetch, and keeps corporate, built-in, and synced personal rules in separate buckets. This goes meaningfully beyond the annotation set.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with what is listed before the scoping caveats. Slightly hurt by the dangling fragment 'Across this installation's workspaces;' which reads as a truncated clause rather than a complete sentence.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it volunteers the key fields and the rule-category separation. Scope and content are covered; ordering, pagination, or size limits are not mentioned but are unlikely to matter for this read-only listing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The mention of returned fields is a bonus rather than a parameter explanation.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (this user's URL rule subscriptions), and enumerates what is returned — enabled state, revision, last refresh error. It distinguishes the tool from fetch-style siblings by noting it never fetches the source, though it does not name the alternatives (get_user_rule, refresh_user_rule) outright.

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 scope constraint ('across this installation's workspaces') implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to sibling tools such as get_user_rule for a single rule. Usage is left largely to inference.

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