get_codex_exec_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that returned files carry source scope and paths, that files contain allow/prompt/forbidden rule categories, and explicitly enumerates what it does not evaluate. Return shape is covered by the output schema. Minor gap: no mention of whether unreadable/missing rule files error or return empty.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the content and exclusion notes. The exclusion list is long but each item genuinely narrows agent expectations.

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?

Output schema handles return values and the scope/exclusion narrative is solid, but the single undocumented parameter is the one lever an agent needs to pull, and ambiguity with the global/local siblings is unaddressed. Adequate, not complete.

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?

One parameter (project_dir, optional, default null) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. 'user and project rule files' gestures at project scoping but does not explain what project_dir does, what null means (cwd? user-only?), or how it interacts with the sibling tools.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read user and project rule files with their source scope and paths.' The scope qualifier ('user and project') hints at how it differs from the global/local siblings, but the siblings are never named, so the agent must infer the split.

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 'does not compute effective policy from approval settings, sandbox settings, managed policy, or project trust' line is a useful negative boundary that tells the agent when this tool is not the answer. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_global_exec_rules or get_local_exec_rules, leaving the sibling choice to inference.

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