Fetch all existing rewrite policies and their MatchGroups to inspect or manage rewrite rules on a Lemon-enabled iPhone.
Fetches all existing rewrite policies and their MatchGroups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Fetches all existing' implies a non-paginated read-only listing, but it says nothing about ordering, volume, permissions, or failure behavior for a tool that may return every rule in the system.
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 compact sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded, no filler. It could be marginally sharper by using the term 'rules' consistent with the tool name and siblings.
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 no-argument lister this is close to sufficient, and mentioning MatchGroups hints at the return structure. But with no output schema and no annotations, a brief note on what a returned rule looks like (or that results are unpaginated) would remove the remaining ambiguity.
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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a 4 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?
States a specific verb (Fetches) and resource (rewrite policies with their MatchGroups), which clearly distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings like upsert_rewrite_rule and delete_rewrite_rule. However, it uses 'policies' where the tool and siblings use 'rules', introducing minor terminology drift.
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?
No indication of when to call this versus related tools such as list_rewrite_scripts or get_rewrite_schema, and no prerequisites or context. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.