get_action_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that action rules are alert conditions that trigger action chains, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, return shape, or filtering nuances beyond what the schema states.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds a useful parenthetical definition. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or restatement.

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, read-only listing tool with 0 required parameters and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource and its domain meaning, and the schema covers parameter details. It falls slightly short of 5 by not signaling paginated response behavior or what fields appear in each listed rule, though openWorldHint and the list-oriented verb make these minor gaps.

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?

All three parameters (limit, offset, name_filter) have 100% schema description coverage, so the description need not repeat them. The description's mention of severity, device groups, and datasource matchers suggests the conceptual filter domains but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('action rules') and defines what those rules are: 'alert conditions (severity, device groups, datasource matchers) that trigger action chains'. This clearly distinguishes it from the singular 'get_action_rule' sibling, which presumably fetches one rule, as well as from alert, escalation, and action-chain tools.

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 'List action rules' phrasing implicitly tells an agent this is the tool for enumerating action rules, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over 'get_action_rule' or related rule tools. No alternative or exclusion is mentioned, so usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.

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