list_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it lists 'loaded' rules and includes error reporting ('rule-file load errors'), which adds behavioral context beyond a simple list. However, it does not detail output format or behavior when no rules are loaded.

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, front-loads the main action, and includes parenthetical detail on returned fields. 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 no-parameter tool with a simple purpose and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool lists and mentions error reporting. It could specify return format if absent from output schema, but this is a minor gap.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (empty object), the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the output contains (id, type, severity, tags) and error reporting, which enriches the bare schema.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('loaded QA rules'), specifies the output fields (id, type, severity, tags), and mentions load errors. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the resource (QA rules) is distinct enough among the sibling names.

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 usage via 'List loaded QA rules' and mentions 'and any rule-file load errors,' giving context on when to use it (e.g., to inspect QA rules or errors). No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the purpose is clear enough for a simple list operation.

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