get_automation_rules

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavior burden: it discloses the required `automations:manage` permission, the weight-based ordering, and the important edge case that an empty or unknown type returns an empty list. It doesn't cover pagination or result shape, but the core behavioral traits an agent needs are present.

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 definition is front-loaded with the action and ordering, then the permission requirement, then the key usage caveat. It is short and mostly earns its space, though the title restatement and raw endpoint/Tags line add some noise.

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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers permission requirements, ordering, mandatory type, and the empty-list edge case. Pagination and response fields are unspecified, but that is a minor gap for this complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum already documents the three valid types, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context that the type is mandatory and that unknown types silently produce an empty list, but does not add further semantics to the single 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 gives a specific verb and resource (get automation rules), states ordering by weight, and distinguishes it from get_automation_rule by making clear this is a per-type list endpoint. The API path reinforces the intent.

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?

It states that a type must always be passed and that empty/unknown types yield an empty list rather than all rules, which implies when the tool applies. However, it never explicitly contrasts with the singular get_automation_rule sibling or says when to choose one over the other.

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