Evaluate Rego with execution trace

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It indicates evaluation with `--explain=full` and a structured trace, implying read-only behavior, but does not mention authorization, side effects, or constraints (e.g., no destructive actions). A 3 is appropriate given the lack of explicit safety disclosure.

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 unnecessary words. First sentence states action and key detail (`--explain=full`), second sentence provides usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and each sentence 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?

For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't describe the return format of the structured trace, pagination, error handling, or how to interpret results. With siblings like `rego_explain_decision`, the trace's role is hinted but not fully detailed. Score 3 reflects adequate but incomplete coverage.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning; for instance, it doesn't explain that `query` is the Rego expression evaluated or that `source`/`paths` are mutually exclusive (though schema hints at mutual exclusivity via description). No additional parameter guidance is provided.

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 specifies evaluating Rego with `--explain=full` and returning a structured trace. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the title 'Evaluate Rego with execution trace' differentiates it from siblings like `rego_eval` (no trace) and `rego_explain_decision` (which consumes the trace).

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?

Description states when to use: 'when an agent needs to see why a rule fired (or didn't)'. It links the trace to `rego_explain_decision`, implying a two-step workflow. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or name alternatives like `rego_eval` for simpler evaluation without trace.

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