list_request_header_rules_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'List request header modification rules,' which implicitly suggests read-only, but does not mention prerequisites, authentication, pagination, or other behavioral traits. The description adds no context beyond the obvious action and resource.

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 terse sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient, but it is also sparse, leaving some value on the table. It earns a 4 for not being padded, though a bit more detail could have been added without harming conciseness.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and an output schema (likely covering return structure), the minimal description is adequate. However, it lacks any behavioral transparency (e.g., read-only nature, pagination) and does not clarify the distinction from the response header counterpart. It is a minimum viable description but not rich.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter zone_id, which is described as a 32-character hex string. The description adds nothing beyond that, but the schema already provides the necessary semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage and no additional parameter details 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 clearly states the action (List) and the resource (request header modification rules), and it distinguishes from the sibling list_response_header_rules_tool by specifying 'request'. This is a specific verb+resource phrasing that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 the tool lists request header rules for a given zone (as required by the schema), but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool for response header rules or provide guidance on when to prefer this over alternative tools. The context is clear but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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