get_rules

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose that the payload is domain-agnostic (module/entity supplied by the user) and includes distilled repo snippets, which is useful for interpreting the result. It says nothing about failure behavior (e.g. missing rules.yaml), caching, or whether the content is static — relevant for a file-backed fetch.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the artifact name, then a dense but purposeful enumeration of covered topics and a clear imperative. The content list is long but each item maps to a real rules domain; slightly verbose in Spanish prose but 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?

With no output schema, no annotations and no params, the description does the necessary work: it describes what comes back and when to call it. The only gap is operational behavior (what happens if the rules file is unavailable), which matters for an agent planning a scaffold or refactor.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies; the description correctly reinforces this by stating the tool is domain-agnostic and that module/entity are supplied by the user rather than as arguments.

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+resource ('Devuelve el cerebro de calidad del área (rules.yaml)') and enumerates its contents precisely: hexagonal architecture, naming, ports, DTOs, data access, error catalog, security. An agent can distinguish it from get_template or get_learnings by the contents, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: read it BEFORE generating a new service or refactoring an existing one, which positions it relative to scaffold_service. It lacks any when-not guidance or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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