get_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds format (Markdown) and completeness ('full' rules and move notation), which is useful but modest; it says nothing about size, paging, or failure behavior for an invalid game.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose (rules content + format) front-loaded and the resource-equivalence note as supporting context.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description needn't explain return values; format and scope are stated. It is essentially complete for a simple read tool, though it omits any note about the three allowed game values beyond the schema.

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 enum is already documented ('Game name from list_games'), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only echoes the parameter via the '{game}' placeholder in the resource URI and adds no new semantic detail.

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 and resource ('Full rules and move notation of a game') and specifies the output format (Markdown). It is clearly distinct from play_move/get_state/analyze_position by content, but never explicitly names a sibling or contrasts scope the way a 5 would.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent infers 'call this to read the rules.' The note that it returns 'the same text as the rules://{game} resource' is a mild routing hint (avoid fetching twice), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance against alternatives like list_games.

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