list_rules

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the operation is a list (read-like), but does not mention return format, pagination, or any side effects. Since it's a simple read operation and there's no output schema, the description could have added clarity about what the list contains, but it remains minimal.

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. The core action is front-loaded and every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, being both concise and complete enough for its simplicity.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: it lists all automation rules. It does not elaborate on the structure of the response, but given the simplicity and absence of output schema, this is acceptable. The tool's role among siblings is also clear enough for a basic call.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). Per the rubric, baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none; the descriptive phrase 'all automation rules' is sufficient and adds no conflict.

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 specific verb ('list') and resource ('automation rules'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It additionally distinguishes itself from siblings like get_rule (single rule) and list_rule_groups (groups) through the word 'all', implying a comprehensive listing.

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. Since siblings include list_rule_groups and get_rule, an agent might need explicit context on whether to use list_rules for all rules or list_rule_groups for grouped rules. The description offers no such direction, leaving usage to inference.

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