Get Project Rules

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden; "Retrieve" does signal a read-only operation, which is the key behavioral fact. Beyond that it says nothing about return shape, whether results are scoped to the current project, ordering, or permission requirements, so a read tool's modest risk profile is covered but not enriched.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the domain framing, then the filter. The category list partially repeats the schema enum, but it earns its place by conveying what kinds of rules exist rather than merely enumerating values.

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?

This is a simple read tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, so the description is close to sufficient. The notable gap is that with no output schema, the description never indicates what a returned rule looks like (fields, structure) or whether results are a list, leaving an agent to discover the shape at call time.

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 single parameter has a full enum, so the schema already documents the filter completely. The description adds only the intent that filtering narrows to "only relevant rules"; it does not explain matching behavior or what an unfiltered call returns, so the 3 baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Retrieve project rules") plus the source (SystemDox Standards), and it defines what a rule is — team-defined principles across deployment, architecture, security, testing, and process — which meaningfully separates it from siblings like get_guardrails, get_checks, and get_specs. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from the domain framing rather than stated.

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?

"Filter by category to get only relevant rules" implies the filter is optional and useful for narrowing, which is a light usage cue. However, there is no guidance on when to call this versus get_guardrails, get_checks, or get_specs, and no statement that omitting the filter returns everything.

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