list_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the phrase 'with descriptions' indicates return content. However, it does not disclose potential auth requirements, pagination, or ordering behavior. For a simple listing tool this is minimally adequate but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'List', and every word earns its place. It is succinct and clearly structured, with no redundant or vague language.

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, the description covers the core purpose and return essence. It could optionally mention how the output relates to get_rule or describe the expected response structure, but given the low complexity, it is nearly complete. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the note about descriptions.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter-specific info, but none is needed since the tool takes no inputs. Schema coverage is effectively 100% with no properties, so there is no gap to compensate for.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource: 'all available MigrationPilot safety rules with descriptions.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_rule, which presumably fetches a single rule, and from analysis or fix tools. It unambiguously states the scope and output content.

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 usage for enumerating all safety rules, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives. The sibling get_rule suggests a complementary use case (retrieving a specific rule), but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the guidance implicit.

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