explain_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It indicates the explanation covers detection logic, caveats, and remediation, which is useful output context, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it requires a valid rule identifier, or what happens for an unknown rule.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every phrase contributes to the tool's purpose.

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 one-parameter explain tool with an output schema, the description covers the conceptual return content. However, it leaves the required rule identifier's format and usage context undocumented, which is a meaningful gap given zero schema coverage and no annotations.

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?

The single 'rule' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only calls it a 'supabase-rls-check rule' without specifying format, source, or valid values. It does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

States a specific verb, 'Explain', and a specific resource, 'supabase-rls-check rule', and lists the content covered: detects, caveats, and remediation. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling analyze_sql_export, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention alternatives such as analyze_sql_export. The sentence describes output content rather than invocation context.

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