get_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the output is a machine-readable table, includes live-config numbers and battle arithmetic, and is authoritative. It does not explicitly state read-only or side-effect behavior, but the retrieval nature is clear enough for a tool like this.

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, all useful and front-loaded. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, the second establishes authority, and the third provides a useful navigation pointer to a sibling tool. 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?

For a zero-required-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description gives sufficient context about content, scope, and relation to check_in. An agent can decide when to call it and what to expect.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter api_key is already documented as not required because the manifest is public. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as the source of the full machine-readable constraint table covering every agent action, including costs, preconditions, payload shapes, and live-config numbers. This is a specific resource and distinguishes it from action-oriented sibling tools.

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 says this is the number source the guide points at and contrasts it with check_in's available_actions for live-state gating. This implies when to use get_rules versus check_in, though it does not provide an explicit 'use this when...' or exhaustive alternative list.

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