List detection rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what information each rule carries (id, severity, category, file kinds, detection, fix), but that overlaps with the output schema, and it says nothing about ordering, completeness, or how the filters affect results.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before enumerating return content. No filler and nothing buried.

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-required-param, read-only listing tool with an output schema and fully described enum parameters, the definition covers enough to call it correctly. The only real gap is that the filtering behavior (category, min_severity) is never acknowledged in prose.

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% and both parameters are documented enums, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description never mentions the category or min_severity filters, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema and leaves the filtering capability to be discovered there.

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 ("Lists the detection rules toolmoat applies") and enumerates the returned fields, which clearly separates it from the scan_* siblings that perform scanning rather than describing rules. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so differentiation is implicit through the resource rather than stated.

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 points to a discovery/reference use case implicitly by saying it lists the rules toolmoat applies, but it never says when to choose this over scan_path, scan_text, or scan_installed, nor does it mention that results can be filtered. Usage must be inferred.

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