get_categorization_rules

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but provides no detail on the format of the rules, whether they are user-defined or system-generated, or any potential side effects. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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 that communicates the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and a straightforward getter behavior.

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?

Given the low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what constitutes a 'rule' or 'pattern' and how this tool relates to the sibling categorization tools (e.g., auto_categorize_all, categorize_transaction). Without an output schema, the description should clarify the return value better.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4 per the guidelines. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but there are no parameters to explain, making it sufficient.

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 'Get current categorization rules and patterns' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resources ('categorization rules and patterns'), making the tool's intent clear. It distinguishes from siblings like get_categories by focusing on rules/patterns rather than categories, but it does not explicitly differentiate from other getters like get_transactions or get_accounts.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this tool retrieves the rules used by auto_categorize_all, nor does it specify any prerequisites or contexts. The description only states what it does, leaving usage entirely implied.

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