list_automod_rules

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It discloses nothing about permissions needed, pagination/result limits, ordering, or whether rules include disabled ones — only that rules are 'configured on the server'.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no filler or redundancy. Nothing could be trimmed without losing the scope qualifier.

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 simple read-only list with one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves open whether all rules (including disabled) are returned and whether results are paginated, which an agent may need to know.

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?

There is a single optional guildId parameter with 100% schema description coverage (including the DISCORD_GUILD_ID default), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no syntax or defaulting detail, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 clear verb+resource ('List all AutoModeration rules') and scopes it to the server, so an agent can distinguish it from the create/edit/delete automod siblings. It never names get_automod_rule explicitly, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied: 'list all ... configured on the server' tells the agent this is the enumeration path, while get_automod_rule presumably fetches a single rule. However, no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternative is provided.

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