list-security-rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility but is minimal. It omits key behaviors such as pagination details (even though schema defines pageSize/pageNumber), default sorting, and the fact that it only lists rules (not signals). The description does not disclose safety or read-only nature.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently includes the optional filtering aspect.

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 list tool with a well-described schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It could mention pagination behavior or that it is read-only. However, given no output schema, the description does not specify return format or limits.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'optional search filtering', which weakly corresponds to the query parameter, but adds no substantive meaning beyond the schema. No additional semantics for other parameters.

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 goal: 'List security monitoring detection rules' with optional search filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list-security-suppressions or get-security-rule by specifying the exact resource.

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 siblings. For example, there is no mention of using get-security-rule for a single rule or comparison to search-security-signals. The description provides no context for selection.

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