list_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the scan scope (workspace vs. global config paths), which is real behavioral context, but it never states that the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, or how results are ordered — all relevant for a discovery tool.

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 sentence with the verb and scope up front and the file globs as concrete detail. No filler, no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema listing tool, the key thing an agent needs — what gets scanned — is present. The remaining gap is the shape of the returned rule list, which the tool description could have sketched briefly.

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 the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose meaning the description could add or omit, and schema coverage is 100%.

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 ('discovers') and resource ('all active rules'), plus the exact sources it scans (GEMINI.md, AGENTS.md, .agents/rules/*.md, ~/.gemini/config/rules/*.md). The scope word 'all' clearly separates it from the singular sibling get_rule.

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?

Usage is implied by 'discovers all active rules', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_rule instead, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. An agent can infer the intent but must guess at the sibling boundary.

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