register_rules

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosure. It clearly states the tool appends to a file (mutation), implying a persistent effect. It does not cover error conditions or permissions, but the core behavior is transparent.

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, each earning its place: the first explains what and where, the second gives usage timing. No fluff, front-loaded with key information.

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 simple one-param setup tool, the description is sufficient: it explains purpose, target file, and when to run. It does not describe return value (acceptable without output schema) or error handling, but the core completeness is high.

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% with a clear description for 'project_root'. The tool description adds no new parameter info beyond the schema; it only restates 'project root' in context. Slight value from connecting parameter to file location, but 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 (appends rules), target (AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md in project root), and purpose (enforce rules every session). It distinguishes from siblings like cleanse or scan, which are different operations.

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 says 'Run this once when adding clenzer to a project,' providing a clear when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings, though the unique setup role makes it obvious.

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