jambavan_vibhishana_niti

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

The description explains that the tool returns a ruleset and suggests injecting it, but it does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or is safe. With no annotations, more behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, state changes) would be beneficial.

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 (three sentences), front-loaded with the primary action, and covers the key details (purpose, levels, usage). No extraneous text.

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 the single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the output. It could be more explicit about the return format (plain text vs JSON), but it is sufficient for an AI agent.

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 already defines the 'mode' parameter with enum and default. The description adds valuable meaning by explaining each level's behavior ('lite: build what's asked', 'full: default ladder', 'ultra: deletion extremist'), going beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Activate') and resource ('Vibhishana Niti'), clearly identifying the tool as a generator of senior-dev rules. It is distinct from sibling tools like jambavan_context or jambavan_awaken, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage by stating 'inject the returned text into your system prompt', but it does not explicitly compare or contrast with sibling tools (e.g., when to use this vs jambavan_context). No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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