get_story_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It states the file is 'immutable,' implying no modifications and a safe read-only operation, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose what happens if the rule does not exist, the return format, or any potential errors. For a read operation, this is minimal but not misleading.

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 sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to scan and parse. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but not rich. It does not specify return value structure or error handling. However, for a read-only retrieval of a rule file, this may suffice, especially with sibling tools providing context. It is minimally complete but could benefit from mentioning the output type.

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 schema has a single 'rule' parameter with an enum of 9 values, but the description covers only a subset ('workflow, semantic, Quote, catalog, or producer'). It adds the context that these are rule files, which partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. It does not explain each enum value or the difference between 'pipeline' and 'basic,' leaving room for ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource as 'one immutable Story workflow, semantic, Quote, catalog, or producer rule file.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_story_content or update_story_image, which imply write operations. The scope is precise and unambiguous.

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 this tool is for reading rule files but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or context like 'use this instead of get_story_context when you need the raw rule file' is provided. It is clear enough for a simple read operation but lacks explicit guidance.

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