list_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'List' implies read-only, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or how it handles large result sets. It adds some value by mentioning the output content, but lacks explicit behavioral guarantees.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes essential output details. No filler words, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It lacks a note that the category filter is optional and does not specify the exact return format (e.g., array of objects), but the overall context from siblings and schema is sufficient.

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 description does not mention the optional 'category' parameter, but the schema covers it fully with an enum and description ('Filter rules by category'). Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('List') and resource ('all available validation rules'), and specifies the output includes descriptions and severity levels. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_repo or list_react_repos, which perform different actions.

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 context is clear: this is a read-only listing tool for validation rules. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions (e.g., 'use validate_repo to run validations'). The sibling names provide context, but the description itself lacks direct guidance.

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