list_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions filtering but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns all rules by default, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of rule objects). For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all Magento coding standard rules') and succinctly adds filtering details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (a list operation with filtering), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., rule names, IDs, descriptions), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., max results). This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to use the tool effectively.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (category, minSeverity, searchTerm) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value by restating the filtering options without providing additional syntax, examples, or constraints beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'Magento coding standard rules', specifying it can filter by category, severity, or search term. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'check_security' (which likely checks code against rules), 'explain_rule' (which explains specific rules), and 'get_rules_summary' (which might provide aggregated statistics).

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 implies usage context by mentioning filtering capabilities (category, severity, search), suggesting it's for browsing or finding rules. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_rules_summary' or 'explain_rule', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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