Get Human Writing Rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys what the tool returns (rules) and how to apply them (as system-level instructions), which is reasonably transparent for a read-only retrieval tool. It doesn't disclose output scale, format, or how 'comprehensive' the rules are, but the essential behavior is clear.

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 sentences with the purpose front-loaded before the usage direction. The first sentence delivers the core function and the second adds practical deployment guidance. No filler or repetition; appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity — one optional parameter, zero required parameters, no output schema, no nested objects — the description covers the essentials: what the tool does and how to apply its results. The context parameter semantics are already in the schema. Nothing critical an agent needs to invoke it successfully is missing.

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% — the single optional 'context' parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example ('technical documentation', 'casual email'), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get comprehensive rules for writing like a human and avoiding AI slop.' This is clearly a rules-retrieval tool, and it is reasonably distinguishable from siblings check_for_slop (detection) and get_slop_examples (examples). However, it doesn't explicitly name siblings or state how it relates to them, so differentiation is implicit rather than direct.

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 second sentence provides useful application guidance: 'Use these rules as system-level instructions for any text generation task.' This tells the agent when and how to deploy the output. However, it offers no exclusions or alternatives — it doesn't say when to prefer get_slop_examples or check_for_slop instead, leaving some selection burden on the agent.

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