qrtap_get_smart_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral fact that an empty array means the code always resolves to its primary destination, and it warns about the destructive interaction with the sibling setter. It does not cover auth requirements or ordering, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the read operation, then the return-value semantics, then the sequencing warning. Every sentence adds actionable information with no filler.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return semantics (empty array), and sequencing risk, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Minor gaps like ordering or whether disabled rules are included keep it from a 5.

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 schema itself already disambiguates codeId (internal UUID vs. short_url slug), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds that a single code is targeted; baseline 3 applies when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('conditional (Smart Links) redirect rules currently set on one code'), with the scope narrowed to a single code. An agent can immediately distinguish this read-only inspection tool from the mutating sibling qrtap_set_smart_rules without inspecting either schema.

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 tells the agent when to call it: before qrtap_set_smart_rules, and states the consequence of skipping it ('you will silently drop rules you did not know about'). The alternative and the selection condition are both named, leaving nothing to inference.

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