rule_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It confirms that the operation lists rules and supports filters, but it does not disclose whether no filters returns all rules, pagination behavior, sorting, permissions required, or the shape of returned data. For an unannotated tool, this leaves important behavioral context unstated.

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 with no redundant wording. Every term—'List rules' and the three filter dimensions—earns its place.

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 tool has three optional parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. The description identifies the filter dimensions but omits default behavior, return characteristics, and any usage boundaries relative to siblings. For a completely undocumented schema with no annotations, the definition is too thin to be fully self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names all three filter concepts (playbook, testability, category), which maps to the three input parameters and clarifies that they are optional filters. However, it does not explain accepted values, matching behavior, or how 'testability' relates to the boolean 'testable' parameter, so the added semantic value is limited.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List rules'. It also names the optional filter dimensions, so an agent can distinguish this from single-rule operations like rule_get or mutations like rule_add. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling rule_untested tool, which also lists rules under a specific condition, but the general listing purpose is clear.

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 phrase 'with optional ... filters' implies the tool is used to retrieve rules and optionally narrow them, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus rule_untested, rule_get, or other sibling tools. Usage is implied rather than stated, leaving the agent to infer the right selection context.

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