ora_get_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation from a specific file, which implies no destructive side effects. However, it does not mention handling of missing files, permissions, or return format beyond 'rules'. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise sentences in French with no extraneous information. Every word is functional, front-loading the main action and output.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it reads from, and what it returns. It is complete for the agent to understand the tool's purpose and invoke it correctly.

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% for the single parameter, but the tool description adds meaningful context: it explains that project_path is the path where .ora/rules.yaml resides. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Chemin absolu du projet' to clarify its role in locating the rules file.

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 states it reads project conventions from .ora/rules.yaml and returns rules of style, architecture, naming, and preferences. The specific verb 'Lit' and resource 'conventions du projet depuis .ora/rules.yaml' differentiate it from siblings like ora_init_rules or ora_check_patterns.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring the rules file to exist or having been initialized, nor does it suggest when not to use it (e.g., instead of ora_init_rules).

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