list_scan_rules

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists rules and the exact fields returned, implying a safe read-only operation without side effects. It does not discuss errors, pagination, or auth, but for a simple list endpoint this is adequate.

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 two sentences and every clause earns its place: the first states the action and result fields, the second states the intended use case. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy.

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 no output schema, but the description compensates by listing the returned attributes and emphasizing the finite scope of 26 rules. Optional filter parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the description plus schema provides a complete enough picture for selection.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents the optional category and severity filters. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, which meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and a concrete resource ('all 26 Agentforce Capability Scanner rules'), enumerating the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_agentforce or get_rule_details, which perform scans or retrieve a single rule.

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 'Use this to understand the full scope of the security scan' provides clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the purpose is obvious relative to more narrowly-scoped sibling tools.

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