get_local_exec_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Read' clearly implies a non-mutating operation and 'trusted projects' discloses a trust restriction, but it does not explain failure behavior for untrusted projects or any permission requirements.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates scope and trust condition efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values do not need explanation. Still, the description omits parameter semantics and sibling-tool routing, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain the single parameter. It does not describe project_dir, its path format, or what happens when it is omitted and defaults to null.

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 ('Read') and resource ('rules') and scopes it to the local project '.codex/rules' directory. It implicitly contrasts with the global sibling, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate against get_global_exec_rules or get_codex_exec_rules.

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 phrase 'for trusted projects' gives a real usage condition, so there is some guidance. However, it does not say when to prefer this over get_global_exec_rules or get_codex_exec_rules, nor what to do for untrusted projects.

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