whistle_rule_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the operation is to 'get all rule list', implying a read-only retrieval without side effects. However, it does not explicitly confirm there are no mutations, nor does it disclose any potential limitations like pagination or return format. This is adequate for a simple list but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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 a single, concise sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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 simple list tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does: retrieves all whistle rules. It does not explain return format or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and the sibling context, this is nearly complete. A slightly more explicit mention of output structure could push it to 5.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage (100%). Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 params is 4. There is nothing else for the description to add about parameter meanings.

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 '获取 whistle 中所有规则列表' clearly identifies the action (retrieve all) and the resource (whistle rules). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like whistle_rule_get (single rule retrieval) and whistle_rule_set (modification) by indicating a list operation covering all rules.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'use this to enumerate all rules' or contrast with whistle_rule_get, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling context.

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