kasra_get_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating 'List', but does not disclose authentication needs, side effects, or other behavioral traits. The transparency is adequate for a simple list function but could be more explicit.

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 containing exactly the essential information: verb, resource, and listed attributes. There is no wasted text, and the most critical purpose is front-loaded.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the primary action and return fields. However, it omits parameter usage guidance (filtering by severity or enabling status) and does not address pagination, ordering, or errors. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, meaning the description does not explain the 'severity' and 'enabled_only' parameters. The description only hints at output fields ('severity, action, and status'), not input semantics. This adds minimal value beyond the schema structure.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('all loaded security rules'), and the specific fields returned ('severity, action, and status'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'health' and 'kasra_scan_file' by focusing on listing rules rather than health checks or file scanning.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Sibling tool names offer some context, but the description itself lacks explicit usage direction.

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