get_rule

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It signals a read operation and hints at document size, but says nothing about what is actually returned (full text dump?), whether there is truncation or pagination on the 112 KB variant, or any auth/permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Minor redundancy in restating the 112 KB size that the schema enum already declares.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with a fully described enum and no output schema, this is close to adequate. The only real gap is the unspecified default when 'version' is omitted and the unstated return shape.

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%, and the enum already documents both modes with their sizes, so the description is largely redundant here. It does not state the default behavior when 'version' is omitted (it is optional), which is the one piece of meaning the schema lacks.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Baca' / read) and a concrete resource ('pasal hukum dan aturan arsitektur'), and clarifies the two content forms (active AGENTS.md vs. the 112 KB monolith). It does not differentiate this tool from any of the listed siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 purpose implies when to call it (you need to consult the architecture rules), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of when to prefer 'active' over 'monolith', and no reference to any alternative tool for rule lookup.

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