get_cta_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that each goal entry includes the rule, placement, and the one-CTA-per-video law, which clarifies the return content. It doesn't explicitly state that omitting the goal returns all rules, but the enum and optional schema parameter make that reasonably inferable, and this is a read-only getter by name.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the purpose ('CTA rules by goal') and then lists the goals and content structure. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity—one optional parameter, no output schema, and clear sibling differentiation—the description is complete. It covers valid goals, what each rule includes, and the core constraint (one-CTA-per-video). No additional context is necessary for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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 coverage is 100% with an enum, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what each goal entry contains (rule, placement, law), which is beyond the schema's straightforward parameter description. This enriches the semantics without repeating the schema.

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 immediately identifies the tool as providing CTA rules categorized by goal, listing the specific goals (follow, comment_seed, lead_magnet, product, save_share). This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on hooks, scripts, retention, and audits.

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 implies when to use it—when you need CTA rules for a particular goal—by enumerating the goals. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the sibling tool names provide sufficient context, and the clear goal list acts as an implicit usage guide.

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