govern

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It gives no indication of side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens when actions are executed. The list of actions is not accompanied by any behavioral context.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose, but it is under-specified. The line-break list of actions is clear, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing essential context, so it is not effectively structured for decision-making.

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?

Despite having an output schema and 18 parameters, the description provides almost no context. It does not explain how to combine actions with parameters, what outputs to expect, or any operational details. This is severely incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, and the description fails to explain any of the 18 parameters. It does not map parameters like 'pattern', 'must_do', 'ask_first', or 'project_path' to specific actions, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance for choosing and filling parameters.

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 identifies the tool as managing rules and triggers, and lists specific actions (add_rule, update_rule, list_rules, etc.) that define its scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'evolve_rule' which is more focused on rule evolution, though it could be more explicit about the governance context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply lists actions without explaining scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool is preferred over siblings like 'evolve_rule' or 'maintain'.

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