Show project rulesets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Changes nothing' largely restates the structured field. The description does add useful content context by naming what is returned (enabled rulesets and the rule display language), but it never addresses the openWorldHint=true annotation, which is surprising for a project-scoped read.

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 with the resource and output described up front. The second sentence is essentially redundant with readOnlyHint, but it costs little and closes the description quickly.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it reports and that it has no side effects. It could say more about the shape of the ruleset data returned, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that projectDir is the absolute project path, usually the session working directory. The description adds no further meaning about how the path affects which rulesets are resolved, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb ('Show') plus the resource ('which rulesets the server project enables') and an additional output facet (rule display language). The show/set contrast with statica_ruleset_set is implicit in the verb rather than stated, so it stops short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as statica_ruleset_set or statica_scope_show, and no stated prerequisites. Only the trailing 'Changes nothing' hints that this is a pure inspection call.

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