list_muting_rules

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It conveys a read-only enumeration and specifies that conditions and schedules are included in results, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, authorization requirements, or limits. 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and resource, then the scope and output content. 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 read tool, the description covers the key facts: what is listed, the scope, and what the results contain. It stops just short of full completeness because there is no output schema or note about response format/pagination, but the tool's simplicity keeps the gap small.

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 has zero properties and 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters requiring explanation. Per the zero-parameter baseline, the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 ('List'), names the exact resource ('muting rules'), and gives the scope ('all ... in the account') plus the returned aspects (conditions and schedules). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_muting_rule and delete_muting_rule without needing to inspect schemas.

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 implies the intended use: call when you need the complete set of muting rules in the account. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as creating or deleting muting rules, so the guidance is only implicit.

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