sysknife_get_audit_rules

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable operational context beyond that: it requires auditd to be installed and maps to `auditctl -l`. It does not describe what happens if auditd is missing, but the extra prerequisite disclosure is meaningful.

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 definition is compact and front-loads the action and command. There is slight redundancy in repeating 'read-only' and restating the tool name in 'Read-only SysKnife action `GetAuditRules`', but the total length is appropriate.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool whose safety profile is covered by annotations, this is largely complete: it names the command and the auditd prerequisite. Without an output schema, it could say more about the return format, but no critical calling information is missing.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description confirms 'no params', which aligns with the schema, though there is no parameter detail to add.

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 gives a specific verb ('list') and resource ('loaded audit rules') and even names the underlying command (`auditctl -l`), so the purpose is immediately clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the related sibling `sysknife_audit_verify`, which is the only gap keeping it from a 5.

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?

It states a prerequisite ('needs auditd installed') and says 'no params', which is useful context for calling it. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like `sysknife_audit_verify`, leaving usage implied rather than stated.

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