get_project_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the result unions workspace and project scope rules, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or permissions. This matches the baseline for a description that supplements rather than replaces annotations.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the scope constraint front-loaded and the deprecation guidance following. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope of returned rules, and the alternative well enough to invoke correctly. The only gap is that it does not hint at the shape or volume of returned rules, which matters slightly more without an output schema.

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% for the single project_id parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter's format or acceptable values, which is acceptable here given full coverage.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get all rules configured for a project') and immediately bounds the scope ('all scopes: workspace + project'). It also names the sibling get_my_rules as the preferred alternative, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 states the condition that selects this tool versus the alternative: kept for backward compatibility, prefer get_my_rules for agent-scoped effective rules. Both the when and the preferred alternative are explicit rather than inferred.

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