List App Protocol Rules

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, and an output schema exists to document returns. The description adds only the 'L7 ACL' scope qualifier, with no note on filtering, pagination, or ordering.

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 front-loaded phrase with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a tool with numerous look-alike siblings.

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?

Annotations cover the read-only safety profile and an output schema covers return shape, so the remaining burden was mainly scope disambiguation. The L7 ACL parenthetical helps but does not separate this tool from list_acl_rules or list_protocol_groups.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

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?

Gives a specific verb ('列出'/list) and resource ('应用协议控制规则'/app protocol control rules), and the '(L7 ACL)' gloss clarifies the domain. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as list_acl_rules or get_protocol_control.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling list_* tools. The agent can infer it enumerates all rules, but nothing steers selection.

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