rules_interaction

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description adds key behaviors: returns 'relevant rules, step-by-step resolution, and common misconceptions'. This informatively sets expectations for output content.

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 description is extremely concise: two sentences that state purpose and output. No superfluous text, front-loaded with key action.

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?

Considering no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (rules, resolution, misconceptions). Annotations and clarity of purpose make this complete for a two-string input tool.

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%, so baseline 3 applies. The description does not add extra meaning or examples beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., 'First mechanic or card name').

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 uses a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('how two mechanics or cards interact under MTG rules'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like 'rules_lookup' or 'rules_scenario'.

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 description implies usage for comparing two mechanics/cards but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'rules_lookup' for single rule queries). No exclusion or context is provided.

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