get_rules

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the payload's content, which implies a static, read-only reference, but never states the return format, whether the values are static or configurable per competition, or any access requirements. For a zero-parameter read tool the risk is low, so this is adequate rather than strong.

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?

A single front-loaded fragment with no filler, and the enumerated payload items are the most useful thing to surface. It is a fragment rather than a sentence, but every word 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully substitutes by listing what the response contains, and with no parameters there is nothing else an agent needs in order to call it. Only the serialization format and the static-vs-dynamic nature of the values are left unspecified.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is complete and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter detail is needed or missing.

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 names the resource (rules) and enumerates the concrete contents (unit specs, map size, tick rate, hill, budget limits), which tells an agent exactly what it will receive. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_started or get_starter, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs exact game constants rather than prose onboarding. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of how it relates to get_started/get_starter, and no exclusions.

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