List active request-modification rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states it views the rules, with no mention of what 'active' means, whether results are sorted, whether it's a read-only safe operation, or what the output format is. With zero annotation coverage, this is a minimal disclosure.

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 concise sentence ('View the active request transform rules') with zero waste. However, it arguably lacks enough substance to be 'front-loaded' with meaningful content, making it minimal rather than rich.

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 listing tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. It would benefit from stating that this is a safe read operation (especially given no annotations exist), clarifying the distinction from 'active' vs 'saved' transforms, and noting read-only characteristics given other sibling tools like proxy_update_request_transform and proxy_save_transforms exist.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage (trivially, since properties is empty). Per the rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. The description appropriately doesn't need to document parameters that don't exist.

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 title 'List active request-modification rules' is specific (verb='list', resource='request-modification rules'), and the description 'View the active request transform rules' confirms the purpose. However, the description itself is somewhat generic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like proxy_list_transforms or proxy_list_mocks, though the title provides clearer differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Given sibling tools like proxy_list_transforms, proxy_list_mocks, and proxy_list_traffic, it would be valuable to clarify when request transforms are relevant (e.g., for HTTP request interception vs response mocking). The description does not address any usage exclusions or prerequisites.

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