list_cancellations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one real trait: only ACTIVE rules are returned, implying inactive/paused rules are filtered out. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, volume limits, or permissions, so the disclosure is only partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The scope word 'active' appears where it matters most, and nothing is redundant.

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 trivial, parameterless read tool this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema and no annotations the description leaves the return shape (fields per rule, whether empty results are possible, ordering) entirely unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description appropriately adds no fabricated input details.

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 ('List') and resource ('bulk cancellation rules') with a scope qualifier ('active'), so an agent can distinguish it from create_cancellation and cancel_run at a glance. It does not, however, explicitly reference any sibling by name or position itself within the family.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The description never tells the agent to reach for this tool to inspect existing rules before calling create_cancellation, nor when not to use it.

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