get_writing_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the intended timing ('before composing a message') but no additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, response format, or behavior when the optional project parameter is null. Since annotations cover the core read nature, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, tightly worded sentence that communicates the tool's purpose and context with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loads the core function.

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 simple read tool, the description gives the essential purpose, but the sole parameter remains completely undocumented, which is a significant gap. With no output schema, the description also doesn't hint at what the response contains, though that is not strictly required. The missing parameter semantics makes the tool incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'project' parameter at all. The parameter is optional and may be self-explanatory to some degree, but with zero documentation in both schema and description, an agent has no guidance on what values are valid or how it affects the result. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('the current configurable writing style'), and a contextual trigger ('before composing a message'). It is immediately distinguishable from all sibling tools, which focus on sending, watching, and inbox operations, and there is no other tool that reads writing 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 description clearly implies when to use this tool ('before composing a message'), which is a useful usage cue. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though none exist among the siblings that serve a similar purpose. The condition is clear, but exclusions are absent.

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