get_rule_timeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does state the access level (read) and the payload characteristic that matters here (history/summary without full text). It omits operational behavior such as authorization requirements, history size limits, or truncation/pagination, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 blocks with zero filler: the purpose and its differentiator come first, then access level and return shape. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant padding.

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 full schema coverage and an existing output schema, the definition is essentially complete; return fields are even listed despite the output schema making that optional. The only minor gap is any note on history volume or truncation behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single rule_id parameter, including the RN-* format. The description adds no further parameter meaning; the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

Specific verb (Return) plus resource (a rule's chronological history and linked-lesson summary) with an explicit scope qualifier (without loading full text). It also names the sibling it differs from, get_rule_context, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 gives a clear comparative usage cue: pick this when full text is unnecessary, because it is 'lighter than get_rule_context.' That names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It stops short of an explicit when-not clause or any prerequisite/authorization guidance.

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