rules_by_category

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

Annotations already supply the read-only and non-destructive safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: matching is exact and case-insensitive, and the result is a possibly empty list. This is meaningful operational context.

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 compact, well-structured with clear sections, and front-loads the core purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes useful information; the Returns section is concise and clarifies empty-list behavior.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and sibling context, this description is complete: it covers what the tool does, when to use it, parameter semantics, return shape, and empty-result behavior. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents the category parameter thoroughly with an example. The description's parameter section essentially repeats that information without adding new semantic detail, meeting but not exceeding the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search for rules in the ruleset by exact category name'. The exact-match and case-insensitive qualifiers clearly distinguish it from fuzzy/partial search siblings like rules_search or rules_find.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use rules_toc first when the exact category names are unknown, providing a clear alternative and condition. It does not, however, contrast with the other rules_search/rules_find/rules_match siblings, so the guidance is slightly incomplete.

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