get_rhythm_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety bar is low, yet the description adds real behavioral context: results are content-addressed and cursor-paginated, and changed effective revisions invalidate prior cursors. That cursor-invalidation rule is genuinely useful and not derivable from annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is read, followed by the separate-return caveat and pagination semantics. Dense but each sentence carries information; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description only partially compensates by sketching return structure (IDs/utilities separate, content-addressed). With 0% param coverage and no output schema, gaps remain around limit and profile semantics, leaving the definition adequate but incomplete.

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 0%, so the schema documents nothing. The description indirectly explains 'family' (read by family) and 'cursor' (cursor-paginated, invalidated on revision change), but leaves 'limit' and 'profile' entirely unaddressed, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 (read) and resource (effective semantic rhythm profile) with scope qualifier 'by family'. It is clearly distinct from the design/component/macro siblings, but the tool name says 'rhythm rules' while the description says 'rhythm profile', a minor terminology drift.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: you read the rhythm profile here, and semantic IDs/utilities are 'returned separately' (hinting at other tools). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no named alternative, and no prerequisite stated.

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