rule_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' reasonably implies a read-only operation, and the parenthetical discloses a non-obvious behavior — that results include statically computed warnings (e.g. rules matching every directory). However, it says nothing about permissions, pagination, or result size.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical example earns its place by illustrating the warning concept concretely.

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 no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (rules plus static warnings) well enough to call it correctly. It could go slightly further on output shape, but nothing essential is missing.

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 no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The description adds nothing misleading about inputs.

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 injection rules') and adds scope via 'with static warnings,' which tells an agent what the result set contains. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling rule_validate, but the verbs are distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The agent must infer that this is the read/inspection counterpart to rule_validate purely from the name; nothing in the description confirms that or states prerequisites.

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