get_project_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the consequences of violations ('silent failures — black page, nothing renders...'), emphasizes the most-violated rule about reusing built-ins, and instructs the agent to read all sections. This goes well beyond a simple 'Returns rules' 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?

The description is long and uses a bulleted list to enumerate files, which is appropriate for the complexity of the returned rules. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the 'ALWAYS call this first' imperative. While lengthy, each entry serves a purpose and the content is not wasted, though a more compact summary could be added.

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 tool is complex, returning a rich set of rule documents. The description thoroughly explains the content and purpose of each file, and provides clear, actionable guidance on how to use the returned information. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed; the description is complete for the tool's context.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-related meaning (none needed), and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to elaborate on. No deduction is warranted.

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 'Returns the mandatory Symbols.app rules' and is explicitly positioned as the first call before any generate_* tool. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the authoritative rule set for code generation, not just general context or reference material.

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 gives explicit, actionable usage instructions: 'ALWAYS call this first before any generate_* tool' and lists specific tools ('generate_component, generate_page, convert_react, convert_html, or any code generation task'). It also explains the consequences of not using it, which is strong guidance.

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