get_playbook_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a safe read, and the content categories give a sense of what comes back, but it says nothing about behavior on a non-matching or ambiguous name (the schema's partial match hint notwithstanding), nor about permissions or output shape. Adequate but thin for a zero-annotation tool.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves to concrete example queries that aid semantic matching. It is compact and each element earns its place, though the three examples are slightly more than strictly needed.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the returned rule categories (entry, stop-loss, management, exit), which tells the agent what to expect from the call. The main residual gap is the lack of differentiation from get_playbook.

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 required parameter, and the schema already documents the case-insensitive partial-match semantics. The description adds only 'by name', so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('Get the detailed written rules and execution guidelines for a specific playbook strategy') and enumerates the content types returned (entry criteria, stop-loss, management rules, exit conditions). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_playbook, leaving the agent to guess which retrieval tool to pick.

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?

The example questions imply the usage context (looking up a named strategy's rulebook), which is better than nothing, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs get_playbook, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only inferred.

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