List rule criteria (global)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint path and cross-rule-type scope, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result size, or auth requirements beyond what structured data provides.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the scope qualifier follows immediately. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 read-only listing tool with rich annotations, an output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly. It could still mention pagination or result-shape expectations, but the output schema largely absorbs that burden.

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 all five parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only mild value by clarifying that the rules_id filter works for any rule type, which the schema's "Rule ID to filter by" does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List rule criteria") plus the backing endpoint GET /RuleCriteria, and the parenthetical noting it spans RuleTicket, RuleChange, and RuleMailCollector implicitly separates it from the ticket-specific sibling glpi_list_rule_ticket_criteria. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling as the narrower alternative.

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 notes the rules_id filter is optional and applies across rule types, which implies when the filter is useful, but it never states when to pick this global tool over glpi_list_rule_ticket_criteria or glpi_list_rule_actions. Usage is left to inference.

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