rules_get

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the result includes source, enforcement status, file, and problems, and 'get'/'in force' imply a read, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or side effects.

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. The parenthetical return summary is dense but earns its place; there is only minor awkwardness in phrasing.

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 three-optional-parameter getter, the description covers purpose and returned metadata. With no output schema, the return summary is useful, though safety and permission context remains thin.

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 coverage is 100% and already documents bucket, the service enum with default both, and the database default. The description maps Firestore rules to a database and Storage rules to a bucket, but adds no syntax or default details beyond the schema.

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 names the resource (Security Rules) and scopes it to Firestore database rules and Storage bucket rules, including returned metadata. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as rules_evaluate or rules_list_denials, so the distinction must be inferred from 'in force'.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. The phrase 'in force' implies inspecting current rules, but the description does not route the agent away from rules_evaluate or rules_list_denials.

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