get_karpathy_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Returns' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but it does not elaborate on any other behavior such as pagination, caching, or determinism. For a simple retrieval tool, this is acceptable but 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?

The description is a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and purpose, and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's function. Perfectly concise.

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 retrieval tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states what is returned and why, and the schema covers the parameter. It could hint at the format of the returned rules (e.g., list vs. text), but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the parameter 'category' and its enum values are fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as indicating which categories are most common or how they map to the rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('Andrej Karpathy's core AI coding rules and guidelines'), and clarifies the purpose (prevent over-engineering, bad assumptions, and collateral edits). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that generate blueprints or audits.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions or scenarios that would select this over the many sibling generation/audit tools, nor does it exclude any use cases. The agent must infer when retrieving coding rules is appropriate.

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