list_sheet_metal_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does reasonably: it is clearly a read-only enumeration scoped to the active sheet metal part, and it discloses the shape of each entry including which rule is active. It omits failure behavior (e.g., what happens when the active document is not a sheet metal part), which is the main remaining gap.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope; the second sentence earns its place by explaining how shops encode tooling in rule names, which helps an agent interpret the returned strings.

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?

With an output schema present and a fully described single optional parameter, the description supplies enough context to call the tool correctly. Only the error/precondition behavior for non-sheet-metal documents is left unaddressed.

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 schema documents the single optional 'instance' parameter at 100% coverage (including a pointer to list_instances), so the description need not repeat it. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List the sheet metal rules') plus the scope ('in the active sheet metal part') and enumerates the returned fields (name, thickness, bend radius, active). The read verb implicitly separates it from the sibling set_sheet_metal_rule, though that sibling is never named.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before set_sheet_metal_rule or set_sheet_metal_thickness, but the description never says when to call it, what prerequisites exist, or what to do if no rules are defined.

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