list_dfw_rules

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the return envelope structure, pagination behavior ('truncated=true' means more pages), the fact that 'total' is always null, and that policies can contain thousands of rules. This is valuable operational context not present in annotations.

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 well-structured: a clear [READ] tag, a concise purpose, a paragraph on return format, a workflow tip, and a compact Args list. Every sentence adds value and no redundancy exists.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return envelope and key fields (items, returned, limit, truncated, hint). It also covers prerequisites (policy_id from list_dfw_policies) and related tools (get_dfw_rule_stats). The tool's complexity is fully addressed.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section is the only source of parameter meaning. It clearly explains policy_id, target, limit (default 50), and offset (pagination). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 opens with 'List rules in a DFW security policy' — a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from siblings like list_dfw_policies (lists policies) and get_dfw_policy (gets a single policy). 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?

The description provides an explicit workflow: 'Get policy_id from list_dfw_policies; then get_dfw_rule_stats for a rule's hit counts.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and how it relates to alternatives. It also explains pagination usage with offset/limit.

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