List IoT topic rules

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the shape of the result (topic filters plus a disabled flag), which matters since there is no output schema. It does not mention pagination behavior despite the paging params.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the scope and purpose front-loaded before the usage hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and the relationship to single-rule inspection, and annotations cover safety. The only gap is pagination/result-size behavior, which is relevant given the two paging parameters.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about the two parameters (next_token, max_results). Their names are largely self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap with paging semantics, limits, or defaults.

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 (lists the account's topic rules) and even names the returned fields (topic filter, disabled state). The phrase 'before opening a single rule' implicitly distinguishes it from describe_topic_rule, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Gives a concrete use case ('answer where does telemetry from this topic go?') and positions it as the step before drilling into a single rule, which points at describe_topic_rule as the alternative. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly or stating exclusions, so it is clear context rather than a full routing rule.

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