get_bio_rules

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

There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any side effects, permissions, or return format. The description only covers content, not behavioral traits such as safety, rate limits, or error handling. The tool name implies a 'get' operation, but the description itself does not confirm read-only behavior.

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, with the first sentence conveying the core purpose and the second listing platforms. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. The platform list is slightly redundant with the schema enum, but it still serves as a quick reference. Overall, it is appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable summary of what the tool returns: 'what the first line must do, character priorities, CTA shape.' This covers the essential return content. It does not provide concrete examples or detailed structure, but for a straightforward lookup tool, the level of detail is adequate. The lack of an output schema is offset by this description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter documentation. It mentions 'per platform' and lists the valid platform values, which aligns with the enum in the schema. However, it does not add significant meaning beyond the enum itself—the value of the parameter is mostly self-evident from the tool name and the schema. The description adds some context but not enough to fully compensate for the lack of a schema description.

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 the tool's function: providing bio architecture per platform. It specifies the key aspects ('what the first line must do, character priorities, CTA shape'), which distinguishes it from siblings like audit_bio (which evaluates existing bios) and get_platform_strategy (which is broader). The resource is clearly 'bio rules' with a per-platform scope.

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 clearly indicates the context: use when you need platform-specific bio rules. The inclusion of the platform list (tiktok, instagram, linkedin, x, youtube) clarifies the intended scope. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, missing a stronger differentiation from sibling tools like audit_bio.

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