Show house rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it discloses the fallback behavior when /setup hasn't run, telling the agent that a returned result may be defaults rather than team-authored rules. It stops short of describing the return shape, but that is the main remaining gap.

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 with no waste, and the core identification ("the team's rulebook") is front-loaded with the parenthetical gloss clarifying what a rulebook means. Nothing is redundant, though the second sentence reads as a bolt-on rather than integrated context.

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, the description must carry the burden of explaining what comes back. It says the result is the rules and their storage location and may be defaults, but it doesn't convey the return shape (fields, format, what "where it's stored" actually resolves to), leaving an agent partially blind for a zero-param read tool that is otherwise simple.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description neither adds nor contradicts parameter information, which is appropriate here.

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 ("the team's rulebook") and what it returns (the rules plus where they're stored), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from the write-side sibling save_house_rules. It never states an explicit verb like "get" or "read", relying on the name and the phrase "Returns defaults" to convey the operation, so it falls just short of full specificity.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives (save_house_rules, how_to, what_breaks) and no precondition beyond the incidental note that /setup may not have run. An agent must infer that this is the read-side lookup before editing rules; nothing in the text says so.

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