List Chat Rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does mention the AgentFarm internal API and possible network access, but gives no readOnly confirmation, pagination behavior, or auth/permission expectations for a 6-parameter list tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and free of padding. The trailing API/network note is slightly tangential but still compact and non-redundant.

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 exists, so return values need no explanation, and parameters are fully documented in the schema. Gaps remain around usage context (filtering behavior, when to prefer this over get_chat_rule), leaving the definition minimally adequate for a filtered list 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (page, page_size, scope_id, scope_type, is_active, workspace_name) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List chat rules (workspace chat rules)'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the sibling listing/retrieval tools (get_chat_rule, list_chat_commands), leaving the agent to infer the boundary itself.

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 exclusion criteria, and no mention of alternatives such as get_chat_rule for a single rule. The agent gets a bare listing verb with none of the routing information that the sibling set clearly needs.

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