The rules for working here, by topic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job explaining the default response (basics plus index) versus topic-specific guides and «all». It does not mention side effects or rate limits, but this is clearly a read-only informational tool and the response shape is described adequately.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior and then lists topic-specific guidance. It is slightly verbose but every sentence contributes to explaining the default mode, topic choices, or the «all» option.

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 single optional enum parameter with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers default behavior, each topic's purpose, and the aggregate «all» option. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 values are already documented in the schema. The description adds workflow meaning by tying each topic to a moment of use, going beyond the raw enum definitions.

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 that the tool returns rule guides for working in Tisty, either as a default basics-plus-index response or as topic-specific guides. It is specific about the resource (rules/guides) and the topic-based access pattern, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby read/describe/help siblings.

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?

It gives explicit workflow conditions for each topic: use «tasks» before filing or working a task, «documents» before writing or changing a document, and «tidying» before reorganizing or compacting. It also states what happens when the topic is omitted, leaving little ambiguity about when to call it.

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