bsl_rules_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains source exclusivity, that only task lines are checked while new files are checked in full, default rules behavior, returned fields, and that the LSP index is not used. It still does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe permissions/performance constraints.

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 dense but appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then source selection, filters, defaults, and return shape, with no obvious filler.

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 the complexity, lack of schema descriptions, and absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains parameters, default behaviors, source mode exclusivity, filtering scope, and the structure of returned findings/exclusions/skips/base info. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain all 8 parameters. It does: repo, base, rev, baseline, target, rules, only, and paths are each given meaning, including defaults such as base defaulting to the develop branch point or HEAD, and rules defaulting to BSL_RULES with a built-in catalog fallback.

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 states a specific verb and resource: checking task edits against project rules, including examples of code checks (loops and DB reads, transaction form, parameters, foreign module service interface). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as bsl_diagnostics or bsl_complexity.

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?

It gives strong constraints for how to choose the change source: exactly one of repo (with base/rev semantics) or baseline+target. However, it does not say when to use this tool instead of sibling tools like bsl_diagnostics, so selection guidance against alternatives is only implied.

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