humanizer_get_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully disclose the composition of the result and the precedence rule ("Custom rules outrank the defaults"), which is behavior an agent could not infer elsewhere. However, it says nothing about permissions, freshness/caching, or whether custom rules always exist.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the action guidance and precedence rule. Nothing is padded and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers content, precedence, and when to call it. The only real gap is the unexplained include_custom flag.

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 0% for the single parameter include_custom, and the description never mentions it. An agent must guess that include_custom toggles the "user's own SOP files" portion, rather than being told directly.

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 and resource ("Return the editing rules") and enumerates the three sources: defaults, installed humanizer skill, and user SOP files. It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it never names a sibling or explains how it differs from humanizer_status or humanizer_voice_profile.

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?

"Read these before rewriting text yourself" gives an explicit invocation condition tied to the humanize workflow. There are no stated when-not conditions or named alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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