Mitm List 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. It only says 'List the active rules' but does not mention that it requires a session_id, does not clarify whether it is read-only (though 'list' implies it), and does not describe failure behavior (e.g., if the session does not exist). The description is minimal and lacks transparency about its interaction with the session.

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 sentence with no fluff, but it is too sparse to be effective. It is concise but omits critical context about the session parameter and return value, so the brevity is not a strength.

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 tool has one required parameter and an output schema, the description should at least mention that the rules are scoped to session_id and what the output represents. It does neither, making the tool only partially understandable. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing parameter explanation.

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 has one required parameter (session_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention session_id at all. It fails to explain that the tool lists rules for a specific session, leaving the parameter's role ambiguous.

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 states a clear verb (List) and a specific resource (active map_remote/map_local/modify_headers/modify_body rules). This distinguishes it from sibling setter tools (mitm_set_map_remote, mitm_modify_headers, etc.) that modify rules rather than list them.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance is given, but the tool name and listing nature clearly imply it should be used to inspect current rules before making changes. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it relies on implicit context.

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