list_url_rewrite_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 behavioral traits. It only says 'List URL rewrite rules' and does not state that the operation is read-only, describe return format (though output schema exists), or mention any potential errors, rate limits, or scope limitations. Minimal transparency provided.

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, succinct sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundancy. It is well-structured and appropriately brief.

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 operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention pagination, filtering, or any contextual cues about when to use the tool. The lack of usage guidance makes completeness only average.

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 100% since the zone_id parameter is accurately described as 'Zone ID (32-character hex string)'. The description does not add any extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('URL rewrite rules'), making the purpose immediately clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like list_request_header_rules_tool or list_page_rules_tool, lacking any mention of zone scope or specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, common use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability solely from the name and schema.

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