rule_untested

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden; "List" does signal a non-mutating read, which is the main safety signal. The clause "including rules with test text" usefully disambiguates an edge case where the filter might otherwise be ambiguous, but there is no mention of ordering, result size, pagination, or return shape.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the scope constraint is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic for a domain-specific predicate, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool the description covers the essential selection logic, so nothing critical is missing. It still leaves the agent guessing about result volume, ordering, and whether the output includes test text alongside the rules, which matters given no output schema exists.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the filter, which it states explicitly. Baseline for a parameterless tool is a 4.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List every rule") plus a precise filter predicate ("whose testable flag is false"), which separates it from the broader rule_list sibling. It loses a point only because "testable flag" is a domain-specific concept left unexplained, so an agent unfamiliar with the model may not be fully certain what qualifies.

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 filter condition implies when this tool is appropriate — when you want only untested rules rather than the full set — and the presence of rule_list in the sibling list makes the contrast inferable. However, the description never states the alternative or the condition explicitly, so routing relies on inference.

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