Evaluate Rego with profiling

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that evaluation runs with profiling and returns timing data, but does not mention side effects, destructive behavior, or other behavioral aspects. It adds some context beyond the name but lacks depth.

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, zero waste. First sentence states what the tool does and its output, second sentence gives the primary use case. Information is 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 no output schema and 8 parameters, the description is minimal. It covers the core purpose and use case but omits details on return value structure, profiling overhead, or how it differs from other evaluation tools. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 8 parameters effectively. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, just reiterates the profiling behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool evaluates Rego with profiling and returns per-rule timing and evaluation counts. The verb 'evaluate' and resource 'Rego with profiling' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like rego_eval (without profiling) and rego_eval_with_coverage.

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 explicitly advises use for finding hot rules in slow policies, providing a clear usage context. While it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, the strong recommendation implies a specific scenario, earning a 4.

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