run_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return verdict components (pass/fail, count, GUIDs) and implies a validation action, but it does not specify if running the rule is read-only or if it mutates data, triggers background processes, or requires specific permissions. It adds some behavioral detail but not enough for a full safety profile.

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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the purpose. It provides essential output info without extra fluff. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return details are presumably structured, but the description does not explain the 'port' parameter or the execution context (e.g., whether it runs on the current project). It is incomplete for a two-parameter tool with zero coverage, but the output description adds value.

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%, and the description says nothing about the 'port' parameter, which has no clear semantics in the schema. The rule_id is obvious, but port is unexplained. Description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter, though it does clarify the return value meaning.

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 clearly states the tool runs a QA rule by ID and returns a verdict with pass/fail, failure count, and failing element GUIDs. It is specific with a verb+resource, and distinct from siblings like list_rules or query_elements. It could mention the side-effect nature (running a rule may trigger validation), but the core purpose is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_rules or get_model_summary. It does not state prerequisites, such as needing a valid rule_id, or whether running a rule has side effects. The description is task-focused but lacks contextual usage direction.

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