Rego security audit

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the return shape — findings grouped by severity (high/medium) with remediation guidance — and the prerequisite that regal must be installed. It also reveals the rule-selection behavior (correctness rules tied to policy bypasses plus custom security rules). Nothing stated contradicts the 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?

Three sentences cover purpose, output format, usage context, and a prerequisite with no filler or repetition. The core action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, with the 'Requires regal' caveat appropriately tucked at the end.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the findings format (grouped by severity, with remediation guidance). The allowed-roots path constraint lives in the schema, and fleet-vs-per-file guidance covers usage context. Minor gaps like exit-code behavior are acceptable for a non-mutating lint 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 description coverage is 100%, with paths, configFile, and ignoreFiles each documented, including the allowed-roots constraint on paths and the fleet-roots hint. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it runs regal lint restricted to the `bugs` category plus custom `security`-category rules across policy directories. This precise rule-subset scope differentiates it from the general sibling rego_lint without needing to open that tool's schema. The action, resource, and scope are all explicit and unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for a periodic fleet-wide sweep rather than per-file style review.' This clearly frames the intended context and rules out per-file review, but it stops short of naming a specific alternative tool for that excluded case, which keeps it from a 5.

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