rules_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the read-only nature, which is important, but it does not explain potential side effects, error behavior, or result limits. It also does not mention any permissions or rate constraints, leaving some behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 extremely concise, with the primary purpose in the first sentence and a specific, practical join example in the second. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well-structured for quick understanding.

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 simple query tool with only two parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description conveys the core purpose and a useful join pattern. However, it leaves the limit parameter and output format unexplained, and does not address possible errors or large result sets. It is adequate but not fully complete for a new user.

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 lists sql and limit but provides no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain either parameter. The join hint is helpful for writing queries but does not clarify the meaning or constraints of sql or limit. With zero schema description coverage and no compensation, parameter semantics are largely missing.

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 runs read-only SELECT queries against the gameplay database, which is a specific action and resource. It also provides a useful join pattern for localization. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like rules_lookup or rules_adjacency, so its distinct scope is only partially implied.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative rules_* tools. It does not mention scenarios where this tool is preferred or where other tools should be used instead. The only hint is the general SELECT capability, but that is implicit.

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