List header rules

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description aligns by stating it returns rules. It adds behavior about default return of all rules when no filters are provided. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the action and efficiently covers key details.

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 listing tool with pagination parameters (cursor, limit) and no output schema, the description could mention pagination behavior or result format. While the API endpoint is given, the agent may need to know how to handle paginated results.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions are already present. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only contextualizing that filters are optional. This doesn't significantly improve parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 lists header rules for a service with optional filters. The verb 'list' and resource 'header rules' are specific, and it differentiates from sibling tools like render_add_headers, render_update_headers, and render_delete_header by being a read-only operation.

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 description explains when to use (to list header rules) and the effect of filters, implying usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools, but the name and context are clear enough for an agent to decide.

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