list_chaos_rulesList chaos rules to inject latency, errors, and partial failures that mimic real-world degraded service patterns for testing.
List chaos rules. Chaos injects latency, errors, and partial failures matching real-world degraded-service patterns.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds domain context about what chaos rules do ('inject latency, errors, and partial failures') but says nothing about scope, ordering, or filtering of the returned list.
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 short sentences, with the action stated first and the domain gloss second. Nothing is wasted and it is properly front-loaded.
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 no-param, read-only list tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly sufficient. It could note whether all rules or only active ones are returned, but nothing critical is missing.
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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no parameter syntax for the description to explain. The empty schema is self-evident and the description does not need to compensate.
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+resource ('List chaos rules') and the second sentence clarifies what chaos rules represent, which is useful for a domain term. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_mock_rules or list_rewrite_rules, but the operation is unambiguous.
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 on when to invoke this versus list_mock_rules, list_rewrite_rules, or the create/toggle/update/delete chaos siblings. The description never states context of use or alternatives, leaving routing to the agent's inference from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.