Analyzer rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds semantic context about rule entries (e.g., VBA compile failure mirroring), but does not disclose behavioral details such as output limits, ordering, or error conditions. This matches the calibration example where such gaps cap the score at 3.

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 with no fluff. The resource is identified up front, the content is summarized in one sentence, and the usage guidance is a compact second sentence.

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 read-only lookup tool with zero required parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool is and when to use it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%: both `code` and `search` have textual descriptions, including default behavior ('Empty lists them all'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 opens with 'The analyzer's rule catalogue', identifying a specific resource, and enumerates the exact content of each entry (title, default severity, category, VBA compile mirror, MS-VBAL section). It also gives two concrete use cases, making it unmistakably distinct from analysis or compile-checking siblings.

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 final sentence states clear scenarios: 'explain a code to the user' and 'decide whether a finding is a compile error or a judgement call.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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