get_system_rules

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

No annotations provided, so description fully discloses behavior: returns rules, optional system parameter (typo-tolerant), and return differences based on parameter presence. Also identifies as authoritative reference.

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?

Description is comprehensive but somewhat verbose with imperative sentences. Front-loaded with main purpose, but could be more concise while retaining key info.

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?

With 1 optional parameter and no output schema, description covers key aspects: what is returned, optional behavior, and authoritative nature. Lacks details on output structure but sufficient for usage.

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 has 100% coverage, baseline 3. Description adds clarity by explaining that omitting system yields consensus methodology and overview, and passing it gives specific system ruleset. Additionally notes typo-tolerant, already in schema but reinforced.

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 canonical interpretation rules with specific verb 'Return' and resource 'rules'. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing grounding in framework instead of improvising.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'to GROUND a divination/astrology answer in Mythsensus's framework instead of improvising'. Does not explicitly list alternatives but gives clear usage context.

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