get_rhythm_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are content-addressed, cursor-paginated, and changed effective revisions invalidate prior cursors, which tells the agent cursors are not durable across revisions. It also notes that semantic IDs and implementation utilities are returned separately, which is meaningful for a read tool.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the override and pagination caveats. Every sentence carries substantive information. Some internal jargon (.basecoat/rhythm.json, content-addressed) costs a little readability but each phrase earns its place.

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 read-only, no-output-schema tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing return/behavior context (content-addressing, cursor invalidation, separate ID vs utility returns). What remains thin is guidance on routing between this and the other design-rules tools, which is the only real gap.

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%, so all eight optional parameters are already documented in the schema, including aliases, the family example list, and the profile defaults. The description only echoes 'by family' and the pagination behavior without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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: reading the effective semantic rhythm profile by family, with explicit mention of project-local overrides. An agent can tell this is a read of rhythm/design-token data. However, it never differentiates itself from siblings like get_design_rules or basecoat_rules_enforcer, so the boundary between these tools is left to inference.

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 explains what is returned but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no distinction from the rhythm-adjacent siblings (get_design_rules, enforce_rules). An agent must guess when this is the right tool versus the other rules-fetching tools.

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