List Project Style Guide Rules

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the read-only safety profile, the description adds useful behavioral context: the result is a merged view with effective severity, and project context must already be established. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Two dense sentences: the first front-loads the resource and the exact layers returned, and the second adds routing and prerequisite. There is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 zero-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, returned contents, prerequisite, and an organization-level alternative. It loses a point because the alternative tool name may not exist in the current tool set and because the custom-rules sibling is not disambiguated.

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, so the no-parameter baseline is 4. The description supplies the relevant invocation constraint ('Requires project context'), which is the only semantic detail an agent needs beyond the empty schema.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('style guide rules as they apply in this project') and enumerates the layered contents returned (built-in default, organization override, project override, effective severity, custom rules). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the close sibling list_custom_style_guide_rules, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides a clear routing hint for the organization-level view ('Use get_style_guide_rules for the organization-level view') and states the prerequisite 'Requires project context.' However, the referenced get_style_guide_rules tool does not appear in the supplied sibling list, and the closest listed sibling list_custom_style_guide_rules is never mentioned, leaving the agent uncertain about when to prefer that sibling.

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