Get XDaLa authoring rules

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses its read-only, informational nature ('explains'). It clearly indicates the tool does not perform mutations or destructive actions. The description could be slightly more explicit about the output format, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the use context. It contains no extraneous words and effectively communicates the tool's value. Minor improvement could be adding structure, but it is already efficient.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand its purpose and when to invoke it. It covers the relevant payload types and the nature of the information returned. It is complete enough for a zero-parameter knowledge retrieval tool.

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 description does not need to explain param semantics. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description adds no additional parameter information, which is acceptable.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: to explain payload schema rules, placeholder syntax, apiCalls, rules, and validation requirements for XRC-137, XRC-729, and XDaLa payloads. It uses specific verbs ('explains') and resources (payload types), and distinguishes from sibling tools like validate_xrc137_authoring by focusing on information retrieval rather than validation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('before creating, modifying or reviewing'), providing clear context. Although it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use, the guidance is sufficient given the tool's nature as a reference resource. The sibling set includes other get_ tools, but none duplicate this specific purpose.

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