rules_lookup

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

The description explicitly states the return content (cost, prerequisites, yields, unlocks, triggers, adjacency, description) and implies a read-only lookup operation. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or what happens when no match is found.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey purpose and parameters. It front-loads the primary action and then lists the return fields and kind parameter, making it easy to scan. No redundant or filler content is present.

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?

The description covers the core functionality, return fields, and the kind parameter, but does not address error cases (e.g., lookup failure), edge cases, or the significance of the output beyond the field list. Without an output schema, this leaves some context missing for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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 no descriptions for the parameters (0% coverage), but the tool description partially compensates by explaining that 'name' is an English name or type key and that 'kind' narrows the search with a list of possible values. It does not clarify the default behavior when kind is omitted or the expected format of name, leaving some 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 clearly states the tool's function: looking up a specific game entity by English name or type key, and lists the types of entities covered. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like rules_query or rules_adjacency, but the verb 'look up' and the return field list make the primary purpose 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention situations where rules_lookup is preferable to rules_query, rules_compare, or other siblings, nor does it explain what makes this tool the right choice for a given request.

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