list_nat_gateway_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, depth handling, or permission requirements. It does not contradict annotations, but the value added is minimal since the description only restates the obvious read action.

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, direct sentence that states exactly what the tool does. There is no wasted words or unnecessary details, making it perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 operation with no output schema, the description is adequate. It clearly states what it returns (all rules) and the required context (specific NAT gateway). While it could mention that depth and filters are available, those are already documented in the schema, so the description itself is sufficient.

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 100%, so the parameters (depth, filters, datacenter_id, nat_gateway_id) are already well-documented. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides—it only mentions the IDs indirectly via 'specific NAT gateway'. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it lists all rules of a specific NAT gateway, requiring both datacenter_id and nat_gateway_id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_nat_gateways (which lists gateways) and get_nat_gateway (which retrieves a single gateway), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when you have a specific NAT gateway ID and need its rules. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear given the sibling list where no other rule-listing tool exists. It could be improved by noting that the user must first identify the NAT gateway, but the intent is obvious.

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