query_rules

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: 'Access level: read' establishes the safety profile, the scope-hierarchy ordering rule explains result precedence, and the embeddings-must-exist caveat explains silent fallback to SQL. It stops short of noting result caps, pagination, or performance characteristics of the semantic path.

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 sentences plus a short returns line, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The 'Access level: read' and 'Returns:' fragments are slightly label-like but each carries information rather than 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 an 8-parameter read-only query tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, scope resolution order, dual query mode, access level, and return shape. Nothing critical is missing, though the absence of any guidance tying it to its many sibling read tools leaves a small gap.

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 every parameter including tags, detail, format, category, severity, query_text, and include_deprecated is already documented in the schema, often with more nuance than the description. The description's only added semantic is the query_text/SQL-vs-semantic framing, which the schema already states, 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?

The description states a specific verb (query) and resource (active rules) plus the scope semantics ('visible to a project across its full scope hierarchy, most-specific scope first'), which is genuinely distinguishing detail. It does not, however, name or contrast with the obvious sibling query_lessons or check_feature_against_rules, so an agent must infer the boundary from the resource noun alone.

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 implies when the tool applies (querying rules scoped to a project) and gives one conditional trigger — 'when query_text is set and embeddings exist' switches to semantic search. But it never states when to prefer this over get_rule_context, get_rule_timeline, or query_lessons, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites beyond that single mode switch.

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