ctx_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'all project rules and coding conventions,' which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose whether the result is exhaustive, whether it requires authentication, or if there are pagination or performance implications for fetching 'all' rules. The description is adequate but leaves gaps for a no-annotation scenario.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word is functional—'Get all project rules and coding conventions' is efficient and clear with no wasted text.

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 the tool has zero parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which presumably describes the return structure), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool retrieves (rules and conventions) and implies it is a comprehensive read operation. Some minor context about scope (e.g., 'for the current project') could be added, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description covers the tool's purpose without needing to elaborate on any parameters.

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 'Get all project rules and coding conventions,' which specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'project rules and coding conventions.' This distinguishes it from siblings like ctx_search (which likely searches for specific items) and ctx_save (which saves/persists data). However, it could be more precise about the scope (e.g., 'all rules for the current project').

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, when should a user call ctx_rules instead of ctx_search or ctx_get? There are no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions, and no mention of alternatives among the 13 sibling tools.

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