lc_list_logging_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state safety, pagination behavior, or what happens if no rules exist. The description lacks transparency about the tool's behavior beyond listing.

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, concise and front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary words. However, it could expand slightly to cover basic parameter hints without becoming verbose.

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 simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core action but lacks context on output format, constraints, or error conditions. Not severely incomplete, but has 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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds no meaning to parameters. It mentions 'for an org' but does not explain 'oid' (required) or 'limit' (optional with default). The agent cannot infer their meanings from the description alone.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'logging collection rules' for an org. It is not a tautology and distinguishes from other list tools by specifying the resource, but it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like lc_list_dr_rules or lc_list_fp_rules.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it. Given the large number of sibling list tools, this omission is significant.

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