List rules

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds useful context about what the returned data represents (automation rules with IDs, amounts in currency units) and the conceptual framing that rules classify recurring movements. With annotations handling the read-only safety, this description adds meaningful added value without contradicting anything.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, the broader value of rules, and the currency-unit clarification. No redundancy or filler. Front-loaded with the primary purpose immediately.

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 list tool with readOnlyHint annotation and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It communicates the domain, the return data shape (rules with IDs), and a currency detail. It could mention what fields/sections of a rule are returned (e.g., conditions, actions) or pagination, but for a list-returning read tool this is reasonably sufficient.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty schema, nothing undocumented). The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately doesn't waste space on parameter details that don't exist. The note that amounts are in currency units helps the agent interpret returned values, which is a small but useful semantic addition.

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 lists Actual's automation rules with their IDs. It also provides meaningful context by explaining what rules do (run on imported transactions, classify recurring movements) — this adds value beyond the bare tool name. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the domain (automation rules) is distinct from accounts, categories, transactions, etc.

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 implies the tool is for viewing automation rules and understanding how recurring movements classify themselves, which gives some usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor are there exclusions or alternatives named. Among siblings, get_schedules and get_payees are somewhat adjacent (recurring/schedule-related), so some distinction guidance would help, but the unique domain is reasonably implied.

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