list_correlation_rules

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses return fields and server targeting, but does not mention pagination behavior (page/size) or any rate limits. It lacks detail on what happens with default parameters.

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 compact and well-structured, using a single line for the main action followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to parse.

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?

The description covers core functionality and return fields, but missing details on pagination (page/size) and sorting. Given an output schema exists, the return field list is sufficient, but the omission of pagination guidance is a gap.

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%, but the description adds meaning for 4 of 6 parameters (search, data_types, active, server). It omits page and size, which are left to their default values. This partial explanation meets the baseline for a 3.

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 tool's purpose as 'List/search correlation (detection) rules,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_correlation_rule' and other entity-specific tools.

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?

The description explains how to use each parameter (search, data_types, active, server) with examples and defaults. It provides clear context for filtering and targeting servers, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools.

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