ListAlertRules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('get list') without mentioning pagination behavior (implied by PageNumber/PageSize parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes a 'custom rule'. For a list operation with 7 parameters, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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, efficient sentence ('获取自定义规则列表') that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the core action.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, or how parameters interact (e.g., filtering by Types vs. Owner). For a list tool with multiple filtering options and no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., PageNumber for pagination, Types for alert types). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '获取自定义规则列表' (Get custom rule list) clearly states the verb ('get') and resource ('custom rule list'), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list tools on the server (like ListDataQualityRules, ListDIAlarmRules, etc.), leaving ambiguity about what specifically makes 'alert rules' different. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling list tools available (e.g., ListAlertMessages, ListDataQualityRules), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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