repoguard_get_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two behavioral facts beyond the schema: the count is fixed at 16 and only 'active' rules are returned (implying inactive ones exist but are excluded). It says nothing about return shape, whether the rules are cached/versioned, or permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The trailing rationale ('to prevent AI hallucination of invalid layering patterns') is arguably decorative, but it does convey why the ruleset exists.

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 no-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient — the agent knows it gets the full active ruleset. Missing only the delivery format of the rules and whether the set is stable across calls.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments — everything is returned unconditionally.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns all 16 active architectural rules') with a scoping quantifier, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tools (audit, diff, fix), so the reader must infer the split from names alone.

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 purpose clause implies usage — fetch the ruleset before validating layering — but there is no explicit statement of when to call this vs. repoguard_audit or repoguard_fix, and no prerequisites or ordering guidance. Minimum viable context only.

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