get_domain_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that the invariants are 'verified' and that the call is mandatory before sensitive changes, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it enforces anything, or what happens if invariants are violated.

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 two terse sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core definition and then states the mandatory usage context, making it highly scannable and efficient.

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 provides essential usage context and examples, and an output schema exists to cover return values. However, with no annotations and no schema-level parameter descriptions, the project parameter remains ambiguous and the tool's behavioral profile is incompletely specified.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The examples give some semantics for 'domain' and 'operation', but the optional 'project' parameter is left completely unexplained, and valid values are not enumerated.

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 states that the tool returns verified invariants for a domain operation and gives concrete examples ('wallet' / 'reverse transaction'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_recent_work or get_project_overview, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 says this is MANDATORY before money-path/auth/tenancy changes, providing a clear trigger condition. It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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