get_rules

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

The annotations already declare that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, covering the safety profile. The description adds the default-version behavior and describes what the rules contain, but it does not add deeper behavioral traits such as error handling, pagination, or authentication requirements.

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 and front-loads the main purpose before listing the rule fields. It is efficient, though the field list could be slightly more structured for scanning.

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 simple read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the default version behavior, and the key returned content. It is largely complete, with only minor gaps around version input semantics and explicit usage context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the version parameter defaults to the latest version, which adds useful meaning, but it does not clarify the expected integer format or what happens when an invalid version is supplied.

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 that the tool retrieves scoring rules for a version, and it enumerates the key fields returned (id, question, evidence, speaker, quote requirement). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but none of the listed siblings overlap with this resource.

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 mentions that the latest version is used by default, which gives some context for the optional version parameter, but it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives or under what conditions a specific version should be requested. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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