List Federation Rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the admin/user-session/full_access OAuth requirement and the explicit exclusion of API keys and workload tokens. It does not add rate limits, pagination, or result-size behavior, so it sits above baseline but is not rich.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return shape, then the authorization constraints. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padding.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers return shape and auth requirements adequately. However, the two required scoping parameters are left entirely unexplained, which is a meaningful gap given 0% schema description coverage.

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 both required parameters, 'organization' and 'cluster', are undocumented in the schema, so the description should compensate but largely does not. It never explains that results are scoped by organization and cluster, and 'List all federation rules' arguably implies a global listing, which the required scoping parameters contradict.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List all federation rules') and clarifies that complete objects with configuration, IDs and timestamps are returned. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as get-federation-rule or list-federation-issuers, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over get-federation-rule, list-federation-issuers, or the create/update/delete rule siblings. The only context given is a prerequisite ('requires an organization admin'), which tells the agent about authorization, not about tool selection.

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