gtt_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only lists allowed status values and does not disclose read-only behavior, pagination, or any other operational traits. The word 'List' implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides the valuable status enumeration that the schema lacks.

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?

An output schema covers return values, and the description plus schema adequately convey the required status filter. However, with no annotations and no mention of pagination or usage context, the definition is only minimally adequate for a list operation.

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 description adds meaningful enumeration for the status parameter, which the schema does not define as enums. However, page and count parameters are not described, leaving their semantics to be inferred from names and 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('List GTT rules'), which is clear and distinguishes it from siblings like gtt_create_rule, gtt_modify_rule, and gtt_details. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name sibling 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gtt_details, nor any context about pagination or required status filtering. Usage is only implied by the word 'List' and the schema's required status field.

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