self_rules_context

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description is fully consistent with these—it describes only retrieving rules. The description does add some output-related context (filtered by project and scope) but does not go beyond annotation coverage in terms of side effects, auth, or rate limits. Since the annotations carry the main safety information, a 3 is appropriate.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and then providing usage and feature details. Each sentence adds relevant information (purpose, usage timing, output behavior, lazy-loading feature, and follow-up action). While slightly verbose with the v8.0 note and rating instructions, every sentence earns its place, so it merits a 4.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the function returns. It only states 'Returns rules filtered by project and scope,' which is vague—it does not specify the format, structure, or whether the output is a list, string, or JSON. This incomplete information about the return value leaves ambiguity for the agent, making the description insufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 67% (phase and categories have descriptions, but project does not). The description adds meaningful context for the phase parameter by explaining lazy-loading and the tagging scheme, but it only vaguely references project and scope without defining them. The coverage is below the high threshold, so the description should compensate, but it only partially does so, leading to a 3.

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's primary purpose: 'Get active behavioral rules for current session.' It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (active behavioral rules), and immediately identifies the intended usage context (session start). This makes the tool's function unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Call at SESSION START to load rules,' providing a clear when-to-use instruction. It also explains the lazy-loading behavior with the phase parameter and suggests rating rules after completion. However, it does not mention any alternatives or when not to use this tool compared to sibling tools, so it's not a perfect 5.

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