List split rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing further: it says nothing about ordering, page size behaviour, how cursors combine with the created filter, or what happens when no rules exist.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence ('List your split rules.') is a pure restatement of the first with the addition of 'your'. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one barely does.

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?

Given the annotations cover safety and the schema fully documents all four parameters including cursors and date filtering, an agent can call this correctly. Still missing is any hint about result ordering or pagination semantics, which matter for a cursor-paginated list endpoint with no output schema.

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 100%: limit, the created date-range object, and both cursors are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies for a fully documented schema.

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 restates the tool name and title verbatim ('List split rules'), adding only 'your' to imply account scoping. It does not distinguish this from the sibling reads get_split_rule, or from the writes create_split_rule/update_split_rule, beyond what the name already conveys.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication of when to prefer get_split_rule for a single rule, and no note of prerequisites. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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