get_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false/destructive=false, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: rules are surfaced once per chat via get_session/next_path, once via a write tool, and the no-area response changes to counts with a 'full=true at 10' threshold. This is meaningful operational context beyond the annotations, though 'full=true at 10' is left cryptic.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, but the body is a single sprawling sentence packing the entire step taxonomy inline plus two more run-on sentences of behavioral rules. Every element is arguably useful, yet the structure makes it hard to scan and could be tightened without losing content.

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 read-only, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, dedup semantics, and the no-argument default. Only the unclear 'full=true at 10' convention leaves a gap an agent might need to resolve.

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 the schema already documents 'area' including the 'post'/'edit'/'all' shorthands. The description nevertheless adds the default behavior when area is omitted (step list with rule counts), which the schema does not state, giving extra value over the baseline 3.

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 states a specific resource ('the rules learned from the user's comments') and its organization ('one file per step'), enumerating the step taxonomy (plan, make, package, publish, engage). It is distinguishable from siblings like set_rule or check_edit, though the phrasing is dense and the 'read rules' framing only emerges in the second sentence.

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?

Gives explicit timing ('Read and follow the steps you work on before you write, edit or design') and names alternative discovery paths ('get_session and next_path show new ones once per chat; a write tool shows unseen ones once'), which tells the agent how rule surfacing differs across sibling tools. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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