rules

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 implies a read-only, informational tool via 'read this' and 'standing ruleset', and it lists what content is covered. It does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or the output format, but it gives enough context for a zero-parameter reference tool.

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 sentences: one that front-loads the resource type and lists its contents, and one that tells the reader when to use it. The long enumerative list is somewhat dense but each item adds useful information; no redundant or filler sentences are 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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool contains and when to use it. It does not explicitly state the return format or that it is a non-mutating read, but for a simple reference tool this is a minor omission and unlikely to confound an agent.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameter semantics and appropriately focuses on content and usage instead.

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 identifies the resource as 'the standing WARDOGS base-building ruleset' and enumerates its specific topics, making its purpose evident. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieve' or 'display', relying on 'Read this' to imply the tool returns the rules.

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 instruction 'Read this before planning a base' explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool, providing clear context for its primary use case. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but for a foundational reference tool this guidance is sufficient.

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