teramind_list_anomaly_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It satisfies this by clarifying that the tool returns rule configuration metadata only and never captured activity that triggered a rule. It also implies a read-only list operation. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or authorization requirements, but for a zero-parameter list tool the provided boundary is meaningful and sufficient to avoid misuse.

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 compact and information-dense with no filler. The primary action comes first, followed by the returned fields, the important behavioral boundary, and the dependency relationship with teramind_get_anomaly_rule. Every clause adds value.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It identifies the tool's purpose, what fields will be returned, what the response represents, and how the returned IDs connect to a sibling tool. No critical missing context is apparent.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the empty input schema already shows.

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 clearly identifies the operation as listing configured ML-based anomaly-detection rules, names the resource, and enumerates the returned fields (rule name, type/subtype, risk quotient, trigger conditions, assignment scope). It also distinguishes itself from activity capture and from the sibling teramind_get_anomaly_rule by framing this as the list/metadata counterpart.

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 description gives strong context for when to use the tool: when you need configured anomaly rule metadata, and it explicitly notes that this is configuration data only, not captured triggering activity. It also states that rule IDs from this response are required by teramind_get_anomaly_rule, which effectively routes the agent to the correct next step. It does not explicitly state when not to use it relative to list_alerts or list_anomaly_rule_tags, so it falls slightly short of a full 5.

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