self_rules

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

The description discloses key behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as the auto-suspend rule (success_rate < 0.2 after 10+ fires) and clarifies the side effects of actions like 'fire (record relevance)' and 'rate (success=true/false)'. It does not mention potential destructive consequences of 'suspend' or 'retire', but the annotations already set destructiveHint to false, so no conflict.

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 brief and information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose ('Manage behavioral rules') and then lists actions and the auto-suspend rule without unnecessary verbiage. Every sentence adds value.

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 moderate complexity (multiple actions, a project/category scope, auto-suspend logic), the description covers the main behaviors but omits details about expected outputs, error conditions, or how scope/project/category interact. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but leaves some operational gaps.

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 description does not add meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Several parameters (tags, project) lack schema descriptions, and the description does not compensate by explaining them. It only describes actions, not the fields needed to perform them, so parameter semantics are not enhanced.

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 manages behavioral rules (SOUL) and enumerates the supported actions (list, fire, rate, suspend, activate, retire, add_manual), giving a clear sense of purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from similar sibling tools like self_rules_context or rule_set_phase, so it is slightly less than a perfect 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 lists actions but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use self_rules_context or rule_set_phase). There is no explicit 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance, leaving the selection largely to inference.

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