list_custom_rules

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits beyond the name: only "active" rules are returned (implying inactive/disabled ones are excluded) and each entry carries statistics. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or volume of results, which leaves real gaps for a list operation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the scope qualifiers attached immediately. No filler, hedging, or redundant restatement of the title.

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 no-argument read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and roughly what comes back. The main omission is that "statistics" is never unpacked, so the agent cannot anticipate the shape or size of each returned entry.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain, and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies an unfiltered, unfaceted listing rather than suggesting options that do not exist.

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?

"List all active custom rules with their statistics" gives a specific verb (List), a specific resource (custom rules), and two scope qualifiers ("active", "with statistics"). That is enough to separate it from add_custom_rule, remove_custom_rule, and execute_custom_rules without opening a schema, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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 verb and by the sibling set: this is the read/inspection call, whereas add/remove mutate and execute runs rules. However, the description states no explicit when-to-use condition and no exclusions, so the agent must infer its position in the workflow.

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