proxy_list_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states it lists all rules sorted by priority, implying a read-only operation. While it doesn't explicitly confirm no side effects, the verb 'list' strongly suggests safe behavior.

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 concise sentence of 7 words that perfectly captures the tool's function with no superfluous information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, simple list operation), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does and the ordering. No output schema exists, but the behavior is straightforward enough that further detail is unnecessary.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('interception rules'), and clearly states the ordering by priority. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that add, remove, or modify rules.

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 implicitly indicates this tool is for reading rules, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., proxy_get_session for sessions). No when-not-to-use or alternative mentions are given.

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