Explain why a Rego query is undefined

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: it combines multiple analysis types, handles both runtime failures and indexer elimination, and returns a structured breakdown plus summary. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently covers what, how, and output. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complex diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (structured breakdown of blocked conditions and human-readable summary). It also mentions edge cases (indexer elimination). No missing context given the tool's 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats some parameter examples (e.g., query example) but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 action ('Diagnose'), the target resource ('fully-qualified Rego query [that] produces no value'), and the output. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like rego_eval or rego_explain_decision by focusing specifically on undefined queries.

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 implies use when a Rego query is undefined and explains what the tool does (combines a plain eval, trace, and AST analysis). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for other scenarios (e.g., defined results).

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