madeonsol_coordination_alerts_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds value by disclosing plan-specific rule limits (PRO=5, ULTRA=20), which is not in annotations. No contradiction.

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 extremely concise: one sentence and a clause with no unnecessary words. Every part is necessary and immediate.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it lists and plan limits. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though it could optionally mention that it returns a list of rules.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. Baseline score of 4 applies as the description is adequate for a no-parameter tool.

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 the tool lists coordination alert rules, with the verb 'List' and resource 'coordination alert rules'. It also differentiates from siblings like create, delete, get, update by specifying the listing action and plan-specific limits (PRO=5, ULTRA=20).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or get. However, the context of the sibling tool names (e.g., _list, _create) implies that _list is for listing, but no when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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