opencdr_rules_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' statement is redundant. The genuinely additive content is the pagination contract — pass the returned next_token to continue — but nothing is said about result shape or ordering, and with annotations carrying the safety profile, this is only moderate added value.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, with no filler. The line breaks around the kind explanation are slightly awkward but the size is appropriate for a three-parameter list tool.

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 no output schema and a 0% schema coverage rate, the description carries most of the burden. It covers filtering and pagination adequately but leaves page_size undefined and says nothing about what a returned rule contains, which an agent needs to plan follow-up calls.

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 compensate. It explains the semantic meaning of 'kind' (signal vs correlation, omit for both) and how next_token drives pagination, which is real added meaning, but page_size is never mentioned and no value guidance or limits are given.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List detection/correlation rules') and immediately scopes it as read-only. It names the sibling opencdr_lists_list as the destination for detection lists, though it does not explicitly contrast with opencdr_rules_get.

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?

It gives explicit inclusion criteria for 'kind' ('signal' or 'correlation', omit for both) and routes a related use case to opencdr_lists_list. What is missing is guidance on when to prefer opencdr_rules_get for a single rule versus listing.

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