list_nat_gateway_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 indicates a read operation via 'list', but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or idempotency. However, 'list' is commonly understood as a safe, read-only operation.

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 sentence with no redundant words, efficiently communicating the tool's purpose without extraneous information.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately identifies the resource and required parameters. It could mention the return format, but for a simple list operation, the current description 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'rules of a specific NAT gateway', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_nat_gateways' which list gateways, not 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?

Description clearly states the tool lists all rules for a given NAT gateway, requiring datacenter_id and nat_gateway_id. Although no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, the context is clear and no competing sibling exists for listing NAT gateway rules.

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