Generate Rego test skeleton

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 behavioral context: it skips existing test rules, infers input shape from AST, and with tableStyle generates array-based stubs. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by process details. It is moderately concise; every sentence contributes value (AST parsing, skipping rules, input inference, tableStyle behavior). Could potentially trim some elaboration but not wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, but description covers the output: stub tests, inferredInputShape response field, and behavior for tableStyle. For a 2-parameter tool with no enums, this is sufficient. Explains what the agent can expect from the tool.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds meaning to tableStyle (explains table-driven stubs with 'every tc in cases') and source (mentions AST parsing), but the schema already adequately describes each parameter. Description provides useful context but not essential beyond schema.

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 it generates a '*_test.rego' skeleton from a policy, with specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'Rego test skeleton'. It details the process: parsing AST, finding non-test rules, emitting stubs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rego_test (testing) and rego_format (formatting).

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 usage for generating test skeletons from policy source, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, when not to use, or prerequisites. No guidance on choosing this over other code generation or testing tools.

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