Get rule source (YAML)

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already covers the read-only nature, but the description adds useful context by mentioning that the tool returns 'whether you may edit it' and that demo domains are read-only. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main function, followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, what is returned (editable YAML, parsed rules, editability), and when to use it. No missing information required for correct invocation.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description only clarifies that the parameter is a 'domain' without explaining its format or allowed values. While the meaning is inferable from the tool name and context, it does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 fetches a domain's rule set as editable YAML, plus parsed rules and editability status. It specifies the exact resource (domain's rule set) and verb (fetch), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning it as a precursor to put_rules.

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 this tool: 'Use this before put_rules to see the current rules.' It also notes a key constraint: 'the built-in demo domains are read-only,' providing clear guidance and an alternative-related tool.

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