rules_explain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the full-text search approach, the targeted content types (conditions, actions, glossary entries), and the inline return behavior. However, it does not state read-only status, permissions, or potential side effects, leaving some behavioral transparency gaps.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the verb and object, then efficiently adds search scope and the rationale for its inline behavior. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or filler.

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 simple search/explain tool, the description covers the tool's goal, method, and key differentiator from sibling lookups, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. The output schema presumably documents return values, so the lack of return-format detail is not a gap. However, it could be more complete by explicitly naming sibling alternatives or mapping to the limit parameter.

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?

The description implies the 'topic' parameter by saying 'Explain a rules topic', but it does not mention the optional 'limit' parameter or its default/value range. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for parameter documentation, though the two-parameter surface makes the missing 'limit' detail a moderate gap.

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 uses the specific verb 'Explain' and identifies the resource as 'a rules topic', clearly stating what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling lookup tools by emphasizing 'a direct answer rather than a lookup requiring a follow-up call', which positions it uniquely against rules_search and rules_get_entry.

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 explicitly frames the tool as the one to use when a direct answer is needed ('returning descriptions inline') versus a lookup that requires follow-up, giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the inline-vs-lookup contrast provides usable guidance.

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