list_preflight_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's opening 'READ-ONLY' merely reinforces that. It adds no deeper behavioral detail beyond the filter (which is more parameter-related). No mention of pagination, output format, or rate limits, but for a simple read-only list tool, the annotations carry the transparency burden sufficiently.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the read-only nature and the core action ('List'), followed by the only parameter detail. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. Ideal conciseness.

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 tool with one optional enum parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the purpose, the filter, and its optionality. It does not mention return format or relationships to sibling tools, but those are not critical for a simple listing operation. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0% description coverage and only one optional enum parameter. The description explicitly lists all valid category values (campaign, contacts, suppression, personalization, copy, schedule, senders) and clarifies the parameter is optional ('optionally filtered'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, giving the agent complete knowledge of the parameter without opening the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('preflight rule catalogue'), and mentions optional filtering. The purpose is clear and not a tautology. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like preflight_demo or preflight_files, but the name and description make the function obvious enough that an agent could differentiate it.

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?

Gives context on the optional 'category' filter and lists valid categories, implying when filtering might be useful. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use statements. The presence of sibling tools like 'validate_preflight_config' suggests related actions, but no comparison is made.

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