Get a command definition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns the full definition including rule bodies, but it does not explicitly mention read-only behavior, side effects, permissions, or the experimental nature of APPLICATION support, which is only noted in the schema.

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 two short sentences that front-load the main function and then give usage context. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 provides both the tool's primary function and its intended usage context. It gives a good sense of the return content (actions, enable rules, display rules with bodies) but lacks output structure details and the experimental warning for APPLICATION support, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a detailed description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline for this dimension.

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 returns the full definition of a command, listing its actions and rules, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ribbon_get_structure or ribbon_get_diff. The verb 'Return' and the resource 'command definition' make the purpose specific 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 explicitly says 'Use this before customizing or reusing an out-of-the-box command,' providing a clear, actionable context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention siblings, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent.

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