check_feature_against_rules

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 discloses the write side effect (persisting a planning_checks record), the access level ('analyze'), and that the tool returns context for the calling LLM rather than a verdict. It does not cover idempotency or whether repeated checks duplicate records, but the key side effect is surfaced.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact labeled 'Access level' and 'Returns' lines. Efficient overall, though the stray '(detail="full")' aside is dead weight that does not correspond to any parameter.

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?

Both parameters are schema-covered and an output schema exists, yet the description still usefully names the returned JSON fields. The remaining gap is the undocumented/mismatched 'detail' reference, which slightly undermines completeness.

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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description actually adds a reference to a 'detail="full"' parameter that does not exist in the schema, which is mildly misleading rather than helpful.

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: check a planned feature description against a project's active rules and lessons. It is clearly distinct from pure retrieval siblings like query_rules or get_rule_context. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of 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?

Usage is implied by 'planned feature description' and by the note that a planning_checks record is persisted before coding. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing against alternatives such as query_rules or get_rule_context is given.

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