get_inferred_rules

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

No annotations provided, but description fully covers behavioral traits: 'Read-only, no side effects.' It details return format (JSON list with category, pattern, confidence, error state) and explains parameter behavior (empty string returns all). No contradictions.

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?

Description is efficient and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value, though a slightly tighter phrasing could improve conciseness. Still very good.

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 no output schema, description sufficiently explains return format and error case. All parameter handling is covered. Sibling tools mentioned. Complete for a simple read-only 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 0%, so description compensates fully. It explains the single parameter 'category' with valid values: 'spacing, colors, typography, borderRadius, naming, components' and behavior for empty string ('get all'). This adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 the action ('Get') and resource ('design rules inferred from your codebase patterns'). It distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives (get_token, get_conflicts).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to understand implicit conventions the codebase follows.' Also provides specific alternatives: 'For explicit design token values, use get_token. For source conflicts, use get_conflicts.'

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