rules_list_denials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavioral traits: only app-client denials, admin/owner requests skipped, ordering newest last, and what explain adds. It omits whether the operation is read-only/safe, any permission requirements, and pagination behavior beyond what the schema documents for limit.

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 densely packed sentence with semicolons; the key scope, exclusion, ordering, and explain behavior are front-loaded. Every clause adds useful information without filler.

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 six-parameter filtered list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral nuance and explain mode. It leaves default limit and return shape to the schema, which is reasonable, though a brief note on output format would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description only elaborates slightly on explain (returning the rule lines that denied each request), adding marginal meaning beyond the schema's own text.

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 and resource (list recent requests denied by Security Rules) and adds scope qualifiers: app clients only, admin/owner requests skipped, newest last. It does not name or distinguish from any sibling tool, so the agent must infer its relationship to rules_evaluate or logs_search.

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 investigating denied requests and notes that admin/owner traffic is excluded, giving useful context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as rules_evaluate or logs_search, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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