list_code_analyzer_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safe read-only profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond 'with details' – no note on how rule discovery scopes to workspace vs config file, or on result volume/pagination.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the downstream use immediately after. Nothing is wasted and there is no filler.

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 read-only listing tool, the essentials are present, but with a nested schema and no output schema the description never explains that the returned rules are the input vocabulary for run_code_analyzer, leaving the selection mechanism (selector, view, target) implicit.

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 description gives no guidance on the five nested inputs (view, target, workspace, configFile, ruleSelector) and reports 0% schema description coverage at the top level, so it does not compensate. Although the nested schema properties do carry their own descriptions, the tool-level description adds no parameter meaning of its own.

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+resource: 'List available code analysis rules with details.' It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling run_code_analyzer by naming that tool's run command as the downstream consumer, though it never names the sibling explicitly by tool name.

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?

'Use to determine rules for code-analyzer run command' gives a clear triggering context, tying discovery to a subsequent analysis run. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming alternatives by tool name, so it falls just below the top bar.

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