sentinela_get_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the nature of the result set ('seções relevantes do knowledge base'), which tells the agent this is a read-only KB lookup with no audit side effects, but it says nothing about permissions, result size, truncation, or whether a miss returns empty vs. error.

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, zero filler, with the action and the return content front-loaded in that order. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what comes back, and 'seções relevantes' is too vague to tell an agent the shape of a rule record or whether 'include_content' expands it. For a two-parameter lookup with full schema coverage this is minimally adequate but leaves the caller guessing about the response.

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 both 'query' and 'include_content' are already documented in the schema. The description's 'por categoria ou termo' merely echoes what the schema says for 'query' and adds no syntax, examples, or guidance on how 'include_content' changes the response, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Consulta regras de segurança') and the retrieval axis ('por categoria ou termo'), plus what it returns ('seções relevantes do knowledge base'). This distinguishes it from the sibling sentinela_audit_* tools, which perform audits rather than lookups, though it never names the similarly read-only sentinela_get_checklist as an alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of 'categoria ou termo' hints at a keyword/topic lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against the 25+ audit siblings and sentinela_get_checklist. An agent must infer that this is the reference-lookup tool rather than an analysis tool.

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