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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that top-level categories return rules across subcategories while subcategories return only their own rules, which is real behavioral context. However, it omits read-only confirmation, pagination behavior, and result limits.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no wasted words. The scope nuance is stated immediately after the core action.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description resolves the main ambiguity (category-level scoping). For a single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, this is essentially complete, though it could note read-only nature or result size.

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 100%, with the category_uri slug and examples already documented. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get all rules in a specific category') and the scope distinction between top-level and subcategory is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the singular sibling get_rule or search_rules, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies when the tool behaves a certain way (by category level) but never states when to choose this over get_rule, search_rules, or get_recent_rules. Usage is left to inference from the sibling set.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about sort order, whether results are newest-first, whether 'updated' versus 'created' matters, or any pagination behavior beyond the raw defaults. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentence with no waste and the core concept front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise for a tool with two behavioral parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The parameters are fully documented in the schema, but the absence of annotations plus the lack of any usage routing or ordering semantics leaves real gaps for an agent deciding between this and its four siblings.

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 100%, with both days and limit fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, unit, or interaction detail (e.g., whether limit truncates the most recent or oldest entries) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (Get) and a well-defined resource (recently updated SSW Rules), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling search_rules or get_rule — an agent must infer that this is the chronological/browse variant rather than a search or single-fetch tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of search_rules, get_rule, or get_category_rules. 'Recently updated' hints at a recency-browsing use case, but no exclusions or alternative-routing conditions are stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait: the returned content is cleaned markdown with JSX components stripped, so an agent knows not to expect raw source. It still omits error behavior for an unknown slug and any read-only/auth guarantees, though 'Get' strongly implies a safe read.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and key, with no filler. The middle sentence restates return fields that the output schema already defines, which is mild redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be re-explained, and the description covers purpose, key, and content processing adequately. It could be fully complete by pointing at search_rules as the way to obtain a slug.

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 100% and the schema already provides example slugs, so the description's 'by its URI slug' adds no syntax or meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Get) and resource (a specific SSW Rule) plus the exact lookup key (URI slug), which separates it from the list/search siblings at a glance. It never names a sibling outright, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is only an implicit hint that the caller must already know the slug ('by its URI slug'), which suggests search_rules might precede this call, but no when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no alternatives are named.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the result (top-level categories, subcategories, rule counts), which signals a read-only listing operation, but it says nothing about ordering, caching, or completeness guarantees — reasonable but not rich for a zero-parameter read tool.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the return shape second. No filler, though the second sentence partially restates what the output schema already conveys.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and there are no parameters to cover. The definition is nearly complete for such a simple tool; the missing piece is any hint of when to prefer it over get_category_rules.

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 per the baseline there is nothing for the description to document. No misleading parameter language is present.

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 ('List all SSW Rules categories in the hierarchy') and clarifies the granularity by explaining it returns top-level categories with subcategories and rule counts. It is clearly distinguishable from get_category_rules in practice, but it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description does not mention that this is a discovery/navigation step before calling get_category_rules, nor does it state any conditions or alternatives. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does reasonably well. It discloses return fields (title, URL, description, relevance score), a critical operational dependency (Qdrant must be running and indexed), and fallback behavior to text search. It doesn't mention error handling or what happens if both search methods fail.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by return format, prerequisite, and fallback behavior. No filler or repetition.

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 has an output schema, so return values needn't be fully detailed, yet the description still usefully summarizes return fields. It covers prerequisites and fallback behavior, which are critical operational details not covered by schema or annotations. The main omission is guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings.

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 100%, so both parameters (query, limit) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Semantic search across all SSW Rules'. This distinguishes it from retrieval siblings like get_rule (singular retrieval) and get_recent_rules (time-based filtering). It doesn't explicitly name siblings, but the scope of 'all SSW Rules' is clear enough to differentiate.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need to search rules by query. The description mentions the Qdrant dependency and fallback behavior, which are operational prerequisites rather than usage guidance. There's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use vs alternatives like get_recent_rules or list_categories.

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