list_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies the exact return fields (description, enabled/disabled status, installation state, source asset file) and notes the ordering rule (first match wins). This goes beyond a generic 'list' statement, though it could be more explicit about being a non-mutating 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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and then adding return details in two short paragraphs. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, full schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation. It explains what is returned, the ordering, and the optional parameters' semantics, making it complete for an agent to use.

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 already provides 100% coverage of both parameters (profile_index and include_available) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Karabiner-Elements complex modification rules for a profile,' making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from siblings like 'list_profiles' by targeting rules within a profile, and from CRUD tools like 'add_rule' and 'remove_rule.'

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 clear context on what the tool does and what it returns, implying when to use it (e.g., inspecting rules in a profile). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling tool names make the differences obvious. The mention of priority order adds useful domain context.

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