list_field_extraction_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the specific data returned and explains the role of FERs in the ingest pipeline, which adds valuable context. While it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only, the 'List' verb implies it, and the background info on FERs is more than sufficient.

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?

The description is extremely concise: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second sentence lists return fields and provides contextual background. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 list tool with an output schema and complete parameter schema, the description fully covers purpose, return contents, and contextual background about FERs. There are no significant gaps that would hinder an agent from correctly selecting and invoking this tool.

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?

Both parameters (limit and token) are fully described in the input schema with types, defaults, minimums/maximums, and descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description provides no additional parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and resource 'field extraction rules (FERs)', and clearly states what information is returned (rule names, scopes, parse expressions, enabled status, extracted field names). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_fields and list_monitors, which deal with different resource types.

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?

The description provides clear context by explaining that FERs automatically parse fields from log messages at ingest time, making it evident when this tool is useful. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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