Evaluate Rego query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the output shape 'standard {result: [...]} shape', which is useful but goes no further. No additional behavioral traits like auth or rate limits are mentioned.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential output shape and positioning. Every word 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?

Given schema coverage and annotations, the description is mostly complete. It mentions the output shape and positions the tool as central. However, it could briefly note that many parameters like 'source' and 'paths' are mutually exclusive, though those details are in the schema.

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 per guidelines baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 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 evaluating a Rego query with specific resources (policy, input document) and output shape. It uses the verb 'Evaluate' and the resource 'Rego query against a policy and an input document'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like rego_eval_with_coverage, though the term 'bread-and-butter' implies primacy.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rego_eval_with_coverage for coverage tracking). The phrase 'bread-and-butter' hints at default usage but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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