qradar_list_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states that the tool returns a JSON string containing matching rules and a count, and the verb 'List' makes the read-only nature clear. It does not discuss error behavior or authorization, but for a simple list operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 compact and well-structured with separate Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information, including parameter examples and default values, with no redundant 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?

The description is complete for a list tool: it covers purpose, filter syntax, pagination, defaults, and return shape. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return structure further, and the resource type is named specifically enough to avoid confusion with sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameters. It does so for all three: filter_expr includes concrete examples, and limit/offset state their defaults and roles in pagination. This adds real semantic value beyond 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 specific verb and resource: 'List correlation/detection rules in QRadar SIEM.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as qradar_list_building_blocks and qradar_get_rule, which handle different resource types or granularity.

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 clearly identifies the operation as listing rules and mentions optional filtering and pagination, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over qradar_list_building_blocks or qradar_get_rule. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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