get_active_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses behavioral traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Return'), describes its role in session initialization, and explains how rules affect other tools (validation with errors/warnings). It doesn't detail rate limits or auth needs, but covers core behavior well.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and return details. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second explains when to use it, the third provides context, and the fourth specifies the return format. No wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity (simple read operation with 0 params), no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral context, and return format, making the output schema sufficient for details without redundancy.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds value by explaining why no parameters are needed (it returns all active rules at session start), justifying a score above the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('active dashboard creation rules'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'set_rule' or 'reset_rules'. It explicitly mentions what it returns and its role in understanding constraints.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call this at the start of a session to understand what constraints are enforced.' It also mentions the context of rules engine validation for other tools like 'configure_chart' and 'add_dashboard', offering clear usage context.

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