Retrieve explicit project rules to distinguish rule matches from proven work. Get clear project guidelines from the local archive for accurate context.
Read explicit project rules. Rule matches are associations, not proof of work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The sentence 'Rule matches are associations, not proof of work' adds an important behavioral caveat beyond the annotations, telling the agent how to interpret results correctly.
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 sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and a critical caveat in the second sentence. Every word earns its place; no fluff or 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?
For a low-complexity, read-only, zero-parameter tool, the description provides the essential purpose and a key interpretation caveat. It could elaborate on what 'project rules' encompass, but the core requirements for correct invocation are met.
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 zero parameters, so the schema covers all aspects (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none to document, matching the baseline for 0 params.
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 a specific action ('Read') and resource ('explicit project rules'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, but the phrasing distinguishes it from tools like project_timeline or status.
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 the tool is used when one needs to read explicit project rules, but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives. It does not mention how it relates to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.