commonsensepass_rules

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup but does not state whether the rules are static or refreshed, whether any auth/workspace context is needed, or how large the fixture packets are when include_fixtures=true.

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?

Two tight sentences with the main return content front-loaded and the optional flag instruction second. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return contents (rules, verdict vocabulary, fixture ids) and explains the flag. However, for a rules/protocol helper sitting among several similarly named siblings, it omits any usage context that would help an agent deploy it correctly.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by explaining the intent of the flag ('for full example packets'), clarifying when an agent should enable it.

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 ('Return') and concrete resources: CommonSensePass rules, verdict vocabulary, and fixture ids. It is clear what the tool yields, but it does not distinguish itself from the closely named siblings commonsensepass_check and commonsensepass_protocol.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus commonsensepass_check or commonsensepass_protocol, nor any prerequisites. The only conditional hint is about the include_fixtures flag, not about tool selection.

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