get_assignment_rules

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the merge behavior: it discloses that results are merged from workspace and project level and that per-rule source annotations are included. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations. It stops short of stating precedence when the two levels conflict.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier ('effective', 'merged') comes early. 'With source annotations' is slightly terse, but nothing is wasted.

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 tool with full annotation coverage this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description is the only place to explain the return shape. It says rules carry source annotations yet doesn't describe precedence when workspace and project rules collide, which is the core question for an 'effective' view.

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% and there is a single required project_id, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description adds only the notion that the project is the scope of resolution. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get effective assignment rules') and clarifies the scope of the result by naming the two levels it merges. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling rule tools like get_project_rules and get_my_rules, though it never names them.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'effective' and 'merged' hint that this is the resolved view rather than the raw project-level rules, but the description never states when to prefer it over get_project_rules, get_my_rules, or get_workflow_rules. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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