get_response_header_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Get' implies a read-only fetch, which is accurate, but the description does not clarify whether the result is a list or a single rule, pagination, or response shape. It is not misleading, just minimal.

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 compact sentence with no filler. The key qualifiers ('HTTP response header modification', 'for a zone') are front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the core is covered: what is being fetched and for which resource. It could be slightly richer, e.g., noting the response is a list, but nothing critical is missing for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and the only parameter (zone_id) already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds only the context that the rules are zone-scoped, which is already implicit in the parameter name and schema. This is the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('HTTP response header modification rules'), and the scope ('for a zone'). It disambiguates from the sibling get_request_header_rules because 'response' is explicit.

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 intended use is implied by the name and description: use it when you need response header modification rules rather than request header rules or other rule types. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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