list_gateway_rules

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. Description adds useful ordering information (by priority ascending) beyond the annotations, but does not mention pagination behavior or potential edge cases.

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?

Description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. Parameter list is clean and uses consistent formatting. No redundant or extraneous sentences.

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 read-only nature (annotations), presence of output schema, and standard pagination, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior. All key aspects—sort order, parameter semantics, and purpose—are addressed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: name_contains (case-insensitive substring match), enabled_only (filters enabled rules), limit (max results), offset (pagination offset). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type/default values.

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?

Clearly states it lists dial plan gateway routing rules, ordered by priority ascending. The verb 'List' and specific resource are well-defined, distinguishing it from the sibling 'get_gateway_rule' which retrieves a single rule.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_gateway_rule'. However, the naming convention (list vs get) implies standard list behavior, and the context of sibling tools makes the use case clear. Lacks explicit when-not or alternative mentions.

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