List available audit rules by type (tool, diff, or all) to see which checks apply to runtime or commit-time scans. Read-only, never exposes implementation.
列出所有审计规则清单（只读，不暴露实现）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | 规则类型：tool（运行时）/ diff（提交时）/ all（默认） | all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states '只读' (read-only) and '不暴露实现' (does not expose implementation), which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention permissions, return format, or any side effects, so it is only partially transparent.
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 front-loads the action and includes the key scoping note. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 simple read-only list with one optional parameter, the description is close to sufficient. But without an output schema or any mention of what the returned rules look like, and lacking usage differentiation from siblings, it leaves some gaps in context.
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 100% – the `type` parameter is fully described in the schema with an enum and default. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'List all audit rules' – a specific verb and resource. It adds a parenthetical read-only note, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like run_audit or audit_trail, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling audit-related tools (run_audit, audit_file, audit_trail), the description leaves the agent to infer when listing rules is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.