get_game_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions that the rules are 'verified', which implies quality assurance, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral aspects. The description is minimal, leaving the agent with limited understanding of side effects or constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the main action and content without any wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple, parameterless tool.

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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description provides a brief list of what is returned but does not specify format, potential errors, or how the data is structured. It covers the essentials but leaves gaps in completeness for an agent to fully utilize the output.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty. The description adds meaning by explaining what the return value contains (game rules, modes, constraints, entry points), compensating for the lack of parameters. According to guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4, and the description fulfills that.

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 'verified game rules, modes, constraints, and public entry points'. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_official_links' which likely provides links instead of rules.

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 implies the tool should be used to obtain game rules but does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tool or provide any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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