list_cleanup_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the useful detail that the table filter is an exact match (not fuzzy), but says nothing about the effect of limit, pagination, or the shape of the returned rules.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and the optional filter appended. No wasted words, though the extreme terseness leaves no room for the missing limit or return-format detail.

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?

This is a read-only list tool with no output schema, so the description should at least convey what comes back and how limit affects it. It covers what is listed and how to narrow it, but leaves result size and pagination behavior implicit.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does clarify 'table' as an exact-match filter, which genuinely adds value beyond the bare string type, but the 'limit' parameter is left entirely unexplained (no default, maximum, or effect on results).

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List Table Cleanup Rules') and adds the synonym '(Auto Flush)', so an agent can identify what is being listed. The naming convention makes it distinguishable from siblings like create_cleanup_rule or set_cleanup_rule_active, but the description itself does not name or contrast any alternative.

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?

'Optionally for one exact table' implies a usage context: use it unscoped for all rules, or scoped to a single table. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the create/set-active siblings an agent might confuse this with.

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