list_rules

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the return is in JSON format, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, nor does it mention any permissions or side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a list operation.

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 concise, with two sentences covering the action and return format. It is front-loaded with the verb. However, it could be slightly more structured with bullet points or clearer language, so not a perfect 5.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and zero parameters, the description sufficiently states it returns a JSON list of built-in detection rules. This is complete for a simple listing tool, though it could specify if there are any filters or pagination (unlikely given no params).

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?

There are no parameters, and the input schema has 100% coverage trivially. The description adds meaning by specifying that the output is a JSON list of rules, which is beyond the empty schema. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 tool lists all built-in detection rules, with the verb '列出' (list) and resource '内置检测规则' (built-in detection rules). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that scan or mask, providing clear purpose.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, given the tool's simplicity and lack of parameters, the context implies it is used to obtain the rule list before engaging other tools, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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