dev_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a ruleset and that the response should be injected into prompts. However, it does not clarify if calling the tool has side effects (e.g., modifying session state) or require specific permissions, leaving some behavioral aspects ambiguous.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the alias and purpose, then detailing levels and usage. It is concise without redundancy, though some could argue it could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

Given one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value and the meaning of each level. It also provides usage instructions. However, it lacks information about any persistent effects or broader context within the tool ecosystem.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with one parameter described. The description adds meaning by elaborating on each enum value ('lite—build what's asked', 'full—default ladder', 'ultra—deletion extremist'), providing context beyond the schema's brief description.

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 it is a functional alias for jambavan_vibhishana_niti, activating a specific ruleset in the current session. It identifies the verb 'activate' and the resource 'Vibhishana Niti', and distinguishes itself by noting it is an alias, with the sibling list containing the original tool.

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 instructs to inject the returned text into system prompt or next message, and explains the three levels. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its sibling (jambavan_vibhishana_niti) or when not to use it. The alias relationship is implied but not directly referenced.

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