list_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the core behavior — a read operation that returns a list with explanatory text — but offers no detail about response shape, ordering, or whether the rule set is complete. For a simple listing tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the action plus object are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential facts: what is returned and what each list entry means. It could note how this fits the screening workflow (e.g., reading rules before running screen_journals), but nothing critical for invoking the tool correctly 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 input schema declares zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no arguments the description needs to clarify. The sentence appropriately refers only to the returned list and its explanations, which is all the schema requires.

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 uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('list of implemented screening rules'), and adds what each item contains ('description of what each indicates'). It is implicitly distinct from siblings like screen_journals, benford_analysis, and detect_duplicates, which appear to run analyses rather than enumerate rules, though this distinction is not stated explicitly.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling screening tools, and no exclusions or conditions are mentioned. An agent must infer that list_rules is a discovery or prerequisite step before running the screening tools.

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