read_ruleFetches a specific rulebook section by number and episode ID, returning its text for review after using search_rules.
Read one rulebook section by its number, as returned by search_rules. Returns the section text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes | Section number, e.g. 2143.01 | |
| episode_id | Yes | The episode id returned by start_task, e.g. ep_3f9c2a1b0d4e5f6a7b8c9d0e |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Input schema / properties / episode_id / descriptionAdded value: +"The episode id returned by start_task, e.g. ep_3f9c2a1b0d4e5f6a7b8c9d0e"Input schema / properties / section / descriptionAdded value: +"Section number, e.g. 2143.01"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the output is the section text (useful since there is no output schema) and where section numbers originate, but says nothing about error behavior or missing sections. Modest added value.
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, front-loaded with the core action, with zero redundant text. Every clause adds information.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the definition covers the action, the identifier source, and the return value. A brief note on what happens when the section does not exist would complete it, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.
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 section and episode_id documented including an example format. The description reinforces that 'section' is a section number sourced from search_rules, but adds no format or eligibility detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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: read one rulebook section by number, returning the section text. It also ties the identifier source to search_rules, which helps place it among siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from read_publication, so differentiation is only partial.
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?
"As returned by search_rules" gives a clear usage context: obtain a section number via search_rules, then read it here. No explicit when-not-to-use or failure conditions are given, but the workflow routing is unambiguous enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.