rules_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It extensively discloses behavior: exact data sourced from rule elements, handling of direct and OR-list prerequisites, and concrete examples for grants and stat_modifiers. This goes well beyond a simple 'gets related items' statement.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by additional capabilities with concrete examples and a note on data provenance. Every sentence adds value; no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description comprehensively covers the tool's functionality, including edge cases like OR-list prerequisites and examples of grants/stat_modifiers. An output schema exists, so return format need not be described. The single parameter is simple and implicitly clarified.

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 0% with only the title 'Entry Id' provided. The description refers to 'a feat' and 'the item's own rule elements' but never explicitly states that entry_id is the identifier of that item. This implies meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the missing schema description.

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?

Clearly states it performs cross-reference traversal for a feat: what it requires and what requires it, plus grants/granted_by and stat_modifiers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rules_search and rules_get_entry by describing relationship traversal.

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?

Implied usage is clear: use when needing prerequisite relationships, grants, or stat modifiers. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are named, so an agent may not know when to prefer this over rules_explain or rules_get_entry.

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