aoci_rules

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the tool is a read that 'does not modify the formal index or Baseline, but may append a local audit record' — a non-obvious side effect an agent could not get from structured fields. No permission or rate-limit detail, but the key write-surface caveat is surfaced.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what it does, then when to call, then the side-effect caveat. No filler and no repetition of the tool name as an explanation.

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 zero-param read with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains when and what side effects occur but never indicates what the returned contract looks like or roughly contains. An agent knows when to call it but not what it will receive.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless call by describing no inputs at all.

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: 'Read the current AOCI session-level runtime contract.' That distinguishes it from the entry-oriented siblings (aoci_get_entries, aoci_update_entry, aoci_search), though the jargon 'AOCI' and 'runtime contract' are left undefined, so a fresh agent must infer what the resource actually is.

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?

Gives three concrete invocation triggers (new Agent Run without a reliable contract, contract context exhausted, service identity change) plus an explicit exclusion: 'Do not repeat it within the same cognition cycle.' It never names a sibling alternative, but the when-to-call and when-not-to-call conditions are unusually explicit.

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