Explain a test-quality-linter rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying exactly what the returned documentation contains (bad/fixed example, options), which helps the agent anticipate the output. It does not describe error handling for invalid rule ids, but that is minor given the schema pattern constraint.

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 of minimal length. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the rule id format is a single brief follow-up. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description adequately covers what the agent needs: it explains the tool's output content and the rule id format. It does not mention potential errors or edge cases, but the output schema likely conveys return structure, and the simple nature of the tool makes this gap acceptable. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, with the ruleId property fully documented (pattern '^TQL\d{3}$' and example). The description's mention that 'Rule ids look like TQL003' merely repeats the schema information without adding new meaning. Thus, the description does not compensate or expand on the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('documentation of one rule'), and enumerates the content ('what it catches, a bad example, a fixed example and its options'). It clearly distinguishes from list-type tools like tql.rules and lint tools like tql.lint by focusing on a single rule's explanation. The rule id format is also given, which removes ambiguity.

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 the tool is used when one needs detailed documentation of a specific rule, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as tql.rules (likely lists all rules) or flake.explain (explains a different linter). There is no 'use this instead of X when...' guidance, leaving the agent to infer the use case from the name and description.

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