Lists rule IDs and titles filtered by category or severity, helping you identify relevant uni-app and WeChat mini-program constraints before retrieving full rule details.
列出规则索引，可按 category / severity(error|warn|info) 过滤。返回 id+title，供后续 get_rules 取详情。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | ||
| severity | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the return shape (id+title only, not full rule bodies), which is genuinely useful, and '列出' implies a read-only operation. It says nothing about permissions, pagination, or result size limits, which leaves real gaps for an unannotated 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 tight sentence group with no filler: purpose, filters, return shape, and follow-up tool, in that order. Nothing is wasted and the most important information leads.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully covers return fields, and no annotations means the read-only nature is adequately implied by '列出'. The main shortfall is the unexplained source of valid category values, which the agent needs before filtering.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It restates the two filters and spells out the severity enum values, which helps, but it never explains what values 'category' accepts – presumably the categories from list_categories – nor whether filters combine. Partial compensation only.
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 ('列出规则索引' – list the rules index) and explicitly positions the output as an index feeding get_rules for details, which cleanly separates it from that sibling. The scope is unambiguous enough that an agent can pick it without opening the 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 phrase '供后续 get_rules 取详情' tells the agent this is the lightweight entry point and names the follow-up tool, and the filter options give concrete use contexts. There is no explicit when-not guidance, but the two-step workflow is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.