sheet_metal_list_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the result envelope ('rules' array plus 'count') and explains that 'is_default' appears for library rules while 'is_used' appears for design rules — a genuine behavioral distinction an agent could not guess. It stops short of stating read-only safety or any permission/rate-limit context, but the output semantics are well covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the field inventory. The field list is verbose but every entry maps to actual returned data, and no output schema exists to absorb it, so the length is largely justified; only the trailing nested type notation is slightly dense.

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 no output schema, so the description must define the return shape — and it does, down to nested 'thickness: {mm, expression}' and the count field. Nothing critical for invoking or interpreting this single-parameter list call is missing, though it omits what an empty rules list means (no rule defined vs. none assigned).

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter is already documented, so baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the consequence of the source choice — library rules report 'is_default' while design rules report 'is_used'. That is meaning beyond the enum values themselves.

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 and resource ('List sheet metal rules') and immediately enumerates the domain attributes returned (thickness, bend radius, gap, relief, K-factor). This makes it trivially distinguishable from siblings like sheet_metal_create_rule or sheet_metal_assign_rule, which the agent can rule out without opening a schema.

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 tool's read-only listing nature implies its use (inspect available rules before assigning one), but the description never says when to call it, when not to, or which sibling (create_rule / assign_rule) follows it. Usage is inferable from the name and field list rather than stated.

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