list_usem_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. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: results are ordered by execution order where the table has one, otherwise by a natural key, and that the different rule types live in different families of tables/configs. It does not state pagination behavior or return shape, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, resource and scope, then ordering, then optional filters — a sensible information order. The first sentence's 16-item parenthetical duplicates the enum already present in the schema, which is avoidable padding.

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 a fully documented schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the two things the schema cannot: which rule families exist conceptually and how results are ordered. No output schema exists, but ordering plus the type list is sufficient to call it correctly.

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%, including the rule_type enum with per-type hints, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 3 is the baseline. The description only restates the type list and mentions the two optional filters, adding essentially no semantics beyond the structured fields.

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 USEM/Vulnerability Response automation rules and configs') plus the scope selector ('of a given type') and enumerates all 16 supported rule families. An agent can distinguish this from get_usem_rule (single record) or set_usem_rule_active without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumeration of rule types and the note that filtering by active state or an encoded query is optional, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives (e.g. get_usem_rule for a known sys_id, set_usem_rule_active for toggling). The agent must infer the routing from sibling names.

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