get_team_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('Returns'), and goes further by disclosing an important domain constraint: the config schema is closed and unknown keys are not applied. It could add more about response format or failure modes, but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple retrieval statement.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the follow-up sentences provide essential usage and schema warnings. The config-editing caveat is slightly tangential to the tool's direct action, but each sentence earns its place by preventing agent errors, so it is not bloated.

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 parameterless getter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and critical config-schema pitfalls. It does not describe the exact return shape, but combined with the rule-structure mention and external schema link, it is largely complete for safe invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the schema already provides full coverage (100%). The description adds relevant context about the structure of rules (id, description, severity), which indirectly helps interpret the returned content, though no parameter documentation is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns this team's code standards.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling review_changes by framing the call as a pre-writing step rather than a post-review step, so an agent knows exactly what this tool provides.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to call the tool ('Call it BEFORE writing code') and explains why, contrasting with learning standards 'from a review.' This gives clear when/when-not context relative to the sibling tool, leaving no ambiguity about the intended trigger.

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