Read Rule Summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the particular sources consulted (global CodexPro rules, project.yml, AGENTS/rules, memory/rules.md) and clarifying it does not write long-term memory, which goes beyond what annotations convey. It doesn't detail aggregation/merge behavior or precedence between sources, which would be additional value, but the disclosure is solid.

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 sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the function and enumerates sources; the second sentence declares the read-only nature. Efficiently front-loaded with purpose before caveats.

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?

This is a read operation with strong annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present. The description covers the sources and the read-only behavior, which is reasonably complete for a read tool. It could add merge/precedence rules for conflicting sources across the different rule files, which would be genuinely useful, but given the strong annotation and schema coverage, a 4 is appropriate.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters well (max_rules, workspace_id, conversation_id, max_memory_file_bytes). The description adds context by naming the aggregation sources, which helps understand why max_memory_file_bytes exists (memory files are being read). However, it doesn't add semantics beyond the schema for the parameters themselves, so a 4 rather than 3 is warranted because it ties parameters to the described behavior.

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 a specific verb+resource combination: building a 'task preflight rule summary' from specific named sources (global rules, project.yml, AGENTS/rules, memory/rules.md). The read-only caveat is explicit, and this tool is clearly distinguished from siblings like 'classify_task', 'run_acceptance', or search/edit tools because it aggregates operating rules into a preflight summary.

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 names the exact sources it aggregates, which clarifies when to use it (before a task when rules need to be gathered). It explicitly states it's 'read-only' and does not write long-term memory, providing an exclusion. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, relying on the read-only distinction rather than naming a sibling. The context implies use before task execution rather than for mutation.

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