Evaluate Rego with execution trace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe. Description adds that it runs with --explain=full and returns a structured trace, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action and output; the second provides usage context and links to a related tool. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, usage scenario, and relationship to rego_explain_decision. Could mention that it is like rego_eval but with trace, but overall sufficient for an agent to select and use correctly.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add new parameter-level semantics; it focuses on overall behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate as description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states it evaluates with --explain=full and returns a structured trace, distinguishing it from rego_eval which likely does not provide a trace. The specific verb 'evaluate with explain' and resource 'Rego' with output 'structured trace' makes the purpose very clear.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when an agent needs to see why a rule fired (or didn't)' and mentions that the trace is the basis for rego_explain_decision. This provides clear context for when to use, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools like rego_eval directly.

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