list_project_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation (list) and the file paths, but does not describe whether it returns just names or full paths, whether it is read-only, or any limitations (e.g., top-level only). This minimal behavioral info leaves the agent guessing about the output and side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool does with no wasted words. It clearly leads with the verb and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. It tells the agent what the list contains, but does not specify the return format (e.g., an array of paths, whether contents are included). For a simple list tool, this is adequate but leaves room for more detail on the response structure.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the list contains (the specific file paths), which is useful even though no parameters exist. It does not need to explain parameter behavior because there are none.

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 (List) and resource (Warp project rule files), and explicitly names the file paths (AGENTS.md / WARP.md). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_memories or list_notebooks by focusing on project rules.

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 that this tool lists project rule files, which tells an agent when to use it (whenever project-level rules are needed). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the resource specificity largely makes that implicit.

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