rules_by_section

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds the case-insensitive exact-match contract and the possibly-empty result list. While error behavior is not covered, the annotation coverage lowers the burden and the added details are meaningful.

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, front-loaded with the core behavior and usage guidance, and organized with Parameters and Returns sections. It mildly duplicates the schema's parameter documentation, but this redundancy is not damaging.

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 lookup with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: the exact matching behavior, the fallback tool to use, and the return shape. No important context 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?

The schema describes the sole parameter fully, including an example, so the description largely restates it. However, it adds the important case-insensitive matching detail not present in the schema description, which helps the agent format the section argument correctly.

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 operation ('Search'), the resource ('rules in the ruleset'), and the matching criterion ('exact section name, case-insensitive'). This distinguishes it from siblings like rules_search, rules_find, and rules_by_category, which are broader or category-oriented.

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 instructs the agent to call rules_toc first when exact section names are unknown, defining a clear selection boundary. This is direct when/when-not guidance rather than leaving the choice to inference.

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