get_my_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is fully covered without the description. The description usefully adds that results span workspace and project levels and carry source annotations, but says nothing about auth requirements, size, or failure modes beyond that.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first front-loads scope and content, the second adds the call-site guidance. No repetition of the tool name, no filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what it returns and when to call it) comes first.

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 zero-required-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and the shape of the return content (rules with source annotations). The one meaningful omission is routing versus the get_*_rules siblings, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face.

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 single optional project_id is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions 'project-level rules' generally but does not explain the effect of passing project_id (project-specific effective rules) beyond what the schema already states.

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 ALL governance rules that apply to you') and enumerates the content classes it returns (workflow constraints, assignment policies, behavioral requirements). The 'that apply to you' scoping plus 'ALL' implies it is the superset of the narrower siblings, but it never names get_workflow_rules, get_assignment_rules, or get_project_rules to make that differentiation explicit.

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?

Gives concrete timing guidance — 'Call at session start (ACP Step 3)' — which is a real when-to-use instruction rather than an implied one. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives, so an agent facing the overlapping rules siblings still has to guess when this is preferable to them.

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