get_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only operation ('Get information') and adds contextual specifics (Engine: axe, WCAG: 2.1_AA, Screens: 1280x1024), but it does not disclose return format, authentication needs, rate limits, or any other behavioral nuances. This is modest transparency but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence followed by a compact bracketed note. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy. It is highly concise while still conveying the tool's purpose and contextual defaults.

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 (2 optional, well-documented parameters) and has no output schema. The description provides sufficient context: it identifies the tool's purpose, engine scope, WCAG version, and screen size. It could mention what the rule information includes (e.g., rule IDs, descriptions), but given the simplicity, the description is nearly 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (tags and engine) completely, with 100% coverage. The description's reference to 'specified engine' mirrors the engine parameter and adds no new semantic information. The bracketed context hints at default configuration but does not enhance understanding of the parameters themselves.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get information about available accessibility rules for the specified engine.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('available accessibility rules'), and the mention of 'engine' distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like analyze_url and analyze_html, which process content rather than retrieve rule metadata.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated. The description indicates this tool is for retrieving rule information, but does not say when to use it versus the sibling analyze tools. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations, so guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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