kanbn_get_action_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but does not state side effects, what 'resolved' means, prerequisites, or failure behavior. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately brief for a simple getter, though it could have used the spare sentence to add usage context.

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?

For a one-parameter getter with no output schema, naming the returned object ('resolved action rules') is minimally viable. However, the description does not explain what 'resolved' involves or how the result differs from related config/validation tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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 schema fully documents the single 'path' parameter with a clear meaning, so the description does not need to add much. It adds no additional parameter context, but none is required beyond schema coverage.

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 'Get' and a concrete resource 'resolved action rules for the board,' so an agent can tell it returns resolved rules. It does not explicitly differentiate from related tools like kanbn_get_config or kanbn_find_action_warnings, but the name and phrasing are clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as kanbn_get_config, kanbn_find_action_warnings, or kanbn_validate_board. Usage context is only implied by the tool name, not stated.

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