list_rules

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose the safety profile and any behavioral nuances. It implies a read-only operation through the verb 'Lists,' but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention whether it includes disabled rules or any system-wide restrictions. It also omits the optional source filter, which could limit the 'all' scope.

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, front-loaded sentence of 11 words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and return value without extraneous detail.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and mentions that sources and status are returned, which is helpful given no output schema. However, it fails to clarify the filtering capability (covered by schema), differentiate from related rule-listing tools, or assert read-only behavior, leaving some gaps for an agent relying on this description alone.

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 'source' parameter has a description: 'Filter rules by source.'). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 is specific: 'Lists all available SPARQL inference rules, their sources, and their status.' It clearly identifies the verb (Lists), the resource (SPARQL inference rules), and the scope (all available), and distinguishes from sibling tools that load, suggest, approve, or reject rules.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pending_rules or get_pending_verifications. The description simply states what it does; it does not mention when not to use it or how it differs from other rule-management tools.

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