get_rules

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'get', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it describe the return format or any pagination behavior (though the schema implies count/offset). The description is too minimal to establish behavioral transparency beyond the basic action.

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 sentence, directly to the point, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: it tells the agent it will get routing rules. However, it does not describe the shape of the returned data or any caveats (e.g., large rule sets). The schema covers pagination, so the essential calling parameters are present, but the overall context is thin.

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 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is acceptable baseline for full coverage, but does not enhance comprehension of parameter meanings.

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 clearly states the action (get) and the resource (Voximplant routing rules for an application). It distinguishes from sibling 'get' tools by specifying 'routing rules', which is a distinct concept from e.g. get_queues or get_acd_state. It lacks a mention of any alternative or sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention the required application_id context or any scenario where this tool is preferred. The description is purely a statement of function, with no usage context or exclusions.

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