Get active authoring rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact content (severities and conventions text) and relates it to the enforcement behavior of mutation siblings, beyond what annotations convey.

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 with zero redundancy. The first sentence states what is returned; the second directly tells the agent when to use it. All information is front-loaded and purposeful.

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, parameterless read tool with readOnlyHint=true, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: the tool returns the active rules and their enforcement context. No output schema exists, but the description outlines the return contents adequately.

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, and the schema coverage is trivially 100% with no properties. Per the rubric, a score of 4 is the baseline for no-parameter tools; the description cannot add parameter meaning since none exist, but it does clarify the output content instead.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a clear resource ('active block-authoring rules'), and enumerates the content ('per-rule enforcement severities and the conventions text'). It further ties the tool to create_block/update_block enforcement, differentiating it from sibling config and access tools.

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 instructs to read this tool to understand what create_block/update_block will enforce, giving a concrete call-to-action. It does not mention when to avoid this tool or use alternatives, but the provided usage context is clear and sufficient.

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