get-active-rules

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden and provides good behavioral context: declares it's 'Read-only' (safety profile), explains that rules can only be modified elsewhere (important constraint), and states the practical use case for understanding blocked access. It doesn't mention rate limits or pagination behavior, but covers the essential operational context.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste - first sentence states purpose and constraints, second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 parameterless read-only tool without annotations or output schema, the description provides excellent context: purpose, behavioral constraints (read-only, dashboard-only modification), and practical use case. It could mention what the output looks like (list format, rule structure) but covers the essential information well given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since there are none, and instead focuses on the tool's purpose and usage context, which is the right approach for a parameterless tool.

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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('List') and resource ('active MCP access rules'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on access rules rather than secrets or sessions. It explains what the tool does in concrete terms.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('to understand why access to a secret was blocked') and provides important context about when NOT to use it ('rules can only be created or modified from the dashboard'), clearly differentiating it from rule-creation tools that don't exist in the sibling list.

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