get_cross_cutting_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a 'formatted string,' which is helpful. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or behavior on invalid categories. Basic transparency is achieved.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states the core action and scope; second lists categories and return format. No wasted words, well 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and return format. It could optionally mention that the rules are 'standalone' as noted, which adds value. Lacks distinction from siblings, but overall sufficient.

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 100%, with the single 'category' parameter fully described via enums. The description restates the enum values (icons, accessibility, etc.) and clarifies they are 'categories,' but adds little beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get standalone cross-cutting design rules by category.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('rules by category'), listing six categories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_rules (which creates rules) and get_reference (which likely fetches different content).

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 implies usage context (when you need rules for a specific category) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It lists categories but does not differentiate from similar tools like get_reference or audit_accessibility.

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