List standing rules

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that a stale/re-check marker is only a flag and the rule stays enabled — a genuinely non-obvious behavior — plus the literal 'No rules yet.' return for the empty case. It also states it takes no arguments, reinforcing the idempotent read profile.

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?

Four dense sentences, all front-loaded: output format first, then the flag semantics, then the call-ordering guidance, then the empty-case string. Every sentence carries distinct information an agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value — and it does so precisely, including the line format, appended metadata, the re-check marker convention, and the empty result. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the response 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description confirms 'takes no arguments', which removes any doubt. There is nothing further to document.

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 and resource ('List the owner's enabled standing rules') plus the exact output shape, which immediately separates it from add_rule and confirm_rule. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says to run it before add_rule to avoid duplicates and to use confirm_rule on a flagged rule that is still right, naming both alternatives and the condition selecting each. Nothing is left to inference.

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