list_notification_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and provides good behavioral context: it explains rule matching logic (AND, wildcards, one binding per rule) and implies a read-only operation. Lacks details on permissions or rate limits, but sufficient for a list tool.

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 only: first states the purpose, second explains rule structure. No superfluous words, clearly 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?

The description explains rule semantics but does not describe the output format (e.g., array fields, pagination). With no output schema, more detail would benefit completeness. However, the essential behavior is conveyed.

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 zero parameters and 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter information; baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools. No contradiction or omission.

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 identifies the resource ('operator's Telegram routing rules') and the action ('List'). It explains the rule semantics (AND-ing dimensions, wildcard omitted dimensions, one binding per rule), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_notifications or list_notification_channels.

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 implicitly conveys usage for viewing routing rules but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create/delete/modify alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools makes the use case clear.

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