get_email_forward_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('Get', 'Shows') which signals non-destructive behavior. It describes the output structure (list of rules with conditions and actions). While it could add more behavioral detail, the read-only nature is clearly conveyed and there's no contradiction.

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 compact and efficient—a title line plus a brief functional summary and a short Returns note. Every sentence adds meaning. It's not overly verbose, though the Returns section formatting (using markdown-style header) is slightly unusual but acceptable.

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?

There is an output schema and no parameters, so the description's job is straightforward. It explains the purpose, what the returned data contains, and what the rules do. Given the simple nature (a parameterless listing tool), this is reasonably complete. It could mention whether rules are returned in a particular order or whether inactive rules are included, but these are minor 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?

The tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage (which is trivially satisfied since there are no parameters to document). Per the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description appropriately explains what the returned data contains (conditions and actions), which adds value beyond the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get all configured email forward rules') that clearly states what the tool does. It elaborates with what the rules do (forward emails based on sender, subject, or other criteria), which distinguishes it somewhat from general email tools. However, within the large sibling set there are related tools like test_email_forward_rules and run_email_forward_now, and the description doesn't explicitly position itself relative to those, though the read-action vs action verbs help differentiate.

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 this is a retrieval tool for viewing configured rules but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like test_email_forward_rules or run_email_forward_now. There's no when/when-not guidance. The 'Returns' section clarifies output but doesn't address selection criteria against sibling tools.

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