Rego security audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent hints. The description adds value by noting it requires regal, returns grouped findings with remediation guidance, and is for fleet-wide sweeps. 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?

Two sentences: first states action and output, second gives usage guidance and prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place, front-loaded with key details.

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?

Despite no output schema, description indicates return format (grouped by severity with remediation). Covers prerequisites, usage context, and parameter scope. Complete for a read-only auditing 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 provides full parameter descriptions. The description adds context that 'paths' should be directories (root scans all) and that 'configFile' is for custom rules. This extra meaning compensates for the schema's explicit but terse 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 the tool runs regal lint restricted to security and bugs categories across policy directories, with output grouped by severity and remediation guidance. It distinguishes itself from siblings like rego_lint (which likely runs all categories) and others.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this for a periodic fleet-wide security sweep rather than per-file style review', providing clear context and implying when not to use. Does not list specific sibling alternatives, but the guidance is actionable.

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