semgrep_custom_rule_syntax_validator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: linting, validation, and specific checks for AST expressions, metavariables, and performance constraints. However, it does not explain what the result/return format looks like, how invalid rules are reported, or whether any mutation or side effect occurs.

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 a single efficient, front-loaded sentence. It states the action and resource immediately, adds relevant technical detail, and includes the cost in a compact parenthetical. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 the clear purpose, the description is incomplete for practical invocation. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the validator returns, how errors or lint findings are surfaced, or how the payload should be structured. For a complex Semgrep-validation tool, this leaves important gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance: it never explains how the Semgrep rule should be encoded inside the generic payload string or what paymentSignature format is expected. This meets the baseline but does not go beyond it.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Lints and validates custom Semgrep YAML pattern rules.' It also names the verification scope — AST expression patterns, metavariable bindings, and engine performance constraints — which clearly separates it from generic validators like validate_code_syntax.

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 a clear context for use: custom Semgrep YAML pattern rules. It implies that if an agent has such rules to validate, this is the tool, and it excludes general code syntax validation by being Semgrep-specific. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of 5.

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