get_safety_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('get') but does not describe the output format or any side effects. It mentions 'enforces' but doesn't clarify if the rules affect other tools. Lacks detail on return structure, making it harder for an agent to use the result effectively.

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 description is two sentences with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys what the tool does and a typical use case. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 getter with no parameters, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and a use case. However, it doesn't mention the output schema or any potential prerequisites (like authentication). Given the simplicity, this is a minor gap, so a 4 is warranted.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% and no additional explanation is needed. The description adds nothing about parameters, but since none exist, a 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the verb 'get' and the resource 'safety rules', and specifies it returns the full list. It sets it apart from sibling getters by focusing on anti-hallucination and safety rules. However, it could more explicitly distinguish it from other safety-related tools, but the name is self-explanatory.

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 provides a clear usage scenario: 'Use it to explain to the user why an action was blocked.' This gives a concrete when-to-use instruction. It doesn't mention when not to use it, but for a simple read-only getter, that's acceptable.

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