cg_rules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the general purpose but fails to mention side effects (e.g., 'reset' might delete rules), authentication needs, or what happens during 'init'. The schema indicates a 'confirm' boolean for reset, but the description does not reinforce this.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every part earns its place.

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 tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'init' or 'reset' do, the format of returned data, or how to interpret results. More context is needed for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 input schema provides full coverage (100%) with descriptions for all four parameters, including enums for 'action' and 'scope'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'List or manage', so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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's purpose: 'List or manage custom validation rules that run during Cartograph validate and checkin.' It specifies both the action (list/manage) and the resource (custom validation rules), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like cg_validate which perform the validation itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, limitations, or context-specific usage. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use 'list' vs 'init' vs 'reset' or when to prefer a sibling tool.

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