List the published WARDEN static-scan rule table

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: 'local snapshot of the compiled rule table, no network, no mutation,' the digest computation detail ('sha256 over the RFC 8785 form of {version, rules}'), and the reproducibility caveat that 'a recorded verdict is only reproducible together with this identity.' None of this is derivable from the annotations, and it does not contradict them.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into clearly labeled sections (When to use / When NOT to use / Behaviour / Returns) that make it scannable. Every sentence earns its place — the output content is enumerated once in detail rather than repeated, and the non-use case doubles as sibling differentiation. The minimal redundancy of the example call is negligible.

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 1-optional-parameter tool with an output schema present, nothing is missing: return contents, use cases, exclusion cases against siblings, network/side-effect behavior, digest identity, and an invocation example are all covered. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and what to expect.

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% — the input schema fully documents include_source, its default, and its effect. The description adds only marginal enrichment by framing include_source=true as enabling 'an independent re-implementation,' which gives the parameter a purpose beyond its mechanics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Return the in-force static-scan ruleset' followed by an exact enumeration of contents (version, digest, rule code, severity, tier, surfaces, regex source, guards). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings with 'This tool does not scan anything' and names static_scan_tools and vet_mcp_server as the tools that apply the table, so an agent cannot confuse it with them.

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?

Provides labeled 'When to use' guidance (explain a finding code, confirm ruleset v4, re-run a scan with the same table) and an explicit 'When NOT to use' section naming the sibling alternatives (static_scan_tools, vet_mcp_server) and the condition that routes to them. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives structure the rubric asks for.

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