list_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data rather than the description. The description still adds real value beyond that by enumerating the exact payload returned and disclosing that verbose=true expands each rule with description and recommendation. It omits pagination, ordering, and result-size behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The primary behavior (list all rules) is front-loaded, and the optional verbosity instruction follows, so an agent can stop reading after the first clause if defaults suffice.

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?

With no output schema present, the description compensates well by naming the returned fields, which is the key missing structured information. It falls slightly short by not mentioning result ordering, pagination, or whether the rule set can be filtered, all of which an agent might reasonably want before calling.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents verbose fully; the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'Pass verbose=true for each rule's description and recommendation' largely restates the schema rather than adding new meaning such as default behavior or cost of the flagged path.

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 ('List') and a precise resource ('every SkillTotal detection rule') and even enumerates the fields returned (id, severity, category, title, threat class, capability), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It never names the siblings scan_component or diff_components, so it stops short of the 5-level criterion of explicitly distinguishing itself from alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'List every ... rule' signals a catalog/discovery tool, and the verbose note hints at when to request fuller detail. There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool instead of scan_component or diff_components, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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