Rule detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying data sources and fallback behavior (reading from markdown file or returning purpose_1line with note), which is not covered by annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds unique information without redundancy. No unnecessary 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?

No output schema exists, but the description fully explains the return value: full text (or fallback) plus v7 machine metadata including intents, triggers, atomic set members, and expected output element. For a simple read-only tool with one parameter, this is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description's job is minimal. It adds the valid code range (R01..R56) beyond what the schema provides (pattern and description). This helps the agent understand acceptable inputs.

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 'Full text of a single rule by code (R01..R56) + v7 machine metadata', specifying the exact verb (retrieve full text and metadata), resource (rule by code), and scope (valid codes range). It inherently distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with batches, indexes, or purposes.

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 context about fallback behavior during migration, which helps the agent understand when full text is available. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gkb_rules_index (for listing) or gkb_rules_by_purpose (for filtering by purpose).

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