explain_ruleOne rule in plain terms: what it requires (TwinEthos's summary), who it applies to and the uses it excludes, its dates, the exact citations with their official links, and the guard to add in one sentence.
When to use: after search_laws, or when someone names a rule id. It never returns the official text itself. Limits: informational data, not legal advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, it discloses that the requirements are TwinEthos's summary rather than official text and that the information is not legal advice. These provenance and reliance limitations are meaningful behavioral context for interpreting and presenting the result.
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 front-loads the tool's purpose and output contents, then gives invocation guidance and limitations in two short labeled sections. Despite the dense opening sentence, there is no repetitive or expendable wording.
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-input read operation without an output schema, the description thoroughly supplies the expected response contents, source character, workflow, and legal-use limitation. The residual ambiguity around rule_id provenance or format is minor relative to the otherwise complete invocation guidance.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by referring to a named rule ID and suggesting a workflow that follows search_laws. However, it does not explicitly document how to obtain the identifier from search results or provide any expected format or example.
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 that the tool explains one rule in plain terms and enumerates the resulting requirements, applicability, exclusions, dates, citations, links, and suggested guard. Its workflow reference to search_laws also distinguishes this single-rule explanation from law discovery.
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?
It explicitly says to use the tool after search_laws or when someone names a rule ID. The statement that it never returns official text supplies a clear when-not boundary, although it does not name an alternative tool for obtaining that text.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.