Lint Rego

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the prerequisite (regal on PATH), the error REGAL_NOT_FOUND, and the artifact issue with inline source. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if it modifies files. Still, it provides significant behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise with three sentences. The first sentence states the main purpose, the second adds prerequisites and error conditions, and the third provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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, the description explains the return format (categorized violations with locations). It covers prerequisites, error cases, and special considerations for inline workflows. The parameter count of 9 is well-accounted by schema descriptions, and the description adds usage context for completeness.

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 coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the mutual exclusivity of source and paths, the artifact issue with source, and default config file lookup. This surpasses the basic parameter descriptions.

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 lints Rego source with the Regal linter and returns categorized violations with file/line locations. The verb 'Lint' and the resource 'Rego source' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like rego_check by mentioning the specific linter.

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 provides when-to-use guidance: it recommends using `paths` for canonical signal and warns about artifacts with inline `source`. It also explains how to handle those artifacts and gives alternatives like ignoring or disabling rules. No explicit when-not-to-use but implied through these recommendations.

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