I wrote an engine a while back. I would call myself a "competent inactive chess player," defining that as in the uncomfortable divide where playing people who aren't active chess players is so easy that it isn't even sportsmanlike, but playing against active players is humbling. For a class, I had to write a chess engine. From my experience, I do not believe you can learn much about chess this way.
When building up an engine, you spend much of your time teaching it not to do monumentally stupid moves. In my class, I was the only person who wrote an engine that didn't fall victim to the 4-move checkmate. My classmates were amazed at my ability to not hang pieces. Getting my chess program to out-perform an elementary student with 1 month of Chess under their belt was quite the challenge, and it certainly didn't teach me anything about the game. It taught me a great deal about game theory (which was, after all, the purpose of my course). It taught me about bitboards and perfect hashes, neither of which are used by humans during play.
So, in the effort to make a "good" engine, you may go out and borrow evaluation tricks from others. You yourself mentioned a few, such as a bishop pair being worth about 500 centipawns. However, behind this evaluation lies a subtle detail: do you know how to use said bishops to get your half-pawn advantage? Very rarely in engine development do we really consider how you are "supposed" to use these advantages. Instead, we make general algorithms which figure it out on the fly. They can't play for you, so its unlikely that knowing your bishop pair is worth half a pawn is enough to help you actually leverage it.
And let us never forget 36. axb5. This is the famous move from Kasparov v. Deep Blue that was so astonishing that Kasparov accused IBM of cheating. When you play, you don't play to some abstract generalized idea of what a good board is. You play to your strenghts. If you're good in tight lockded down positions, you play moves that lead to that. If you're good in open endgames, you play moves that get to open endgames. Computers play to computer's strengths. The value of particular positions is evaluated based on how well those computers can leverage those positions. In the case of axb5, the computer played a very "human" move. It put itself into a position that humans tended to be better at, and computers tended to be worse at. Well, as it turns out, it was a position that Deep Blue was good at too, and it proved it.
So all of the "rules of thumb" are no where near as important as finding out what you are good at, and following those rules of thumb. And you cannot get that from a chess engine.