list_reef_rules

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint both true. The description adds value by explaining that the result contains descriptors which explain facts consumption and rule IDs, and mentions filtering parameters. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences front-load the purpose and add detail about descriptor content. Efficient, but could optionally mention the other parameters briefly.

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?

Output schema exists, reducing need to describe return format. But with 5 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain all parameters or at least projectId/projectRef. Missing usage guidance. Adequate but with gaps.

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 mentions filtering by sourceNamespace and enabledOnly, but does not explain projectId, projectRef, or limit. Partial coverage of parameters; leaves some meaning unclear.

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?

Clearly states it is a read tool for rule metadata, listing durable rule descriptors, with optional filtering by source namespace or enabled-by-default status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (e.g., reef_agent_status, reef_inspect).

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 usage for listing rule descriptors with filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like reef_inspect or reef_scout. No exclusion or comparison to siblings.

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