validate_immune_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses three analysis behaviors and states it returns a validation report with recommendations, strongly implying read-only behavior. It does not explicitly confirm non-mutation or permissions, but for a validation/report tool this is sufficient context.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-line purpose, three numbered checks, and clean Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to parse.

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 one-parameter validation tool with an output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains the input, the validation logic, and the output. It lacks explicit usage guidance and caveats, but those are not critical for such a focused tool.

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 only defines rule_id as an integer with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that rule_id is the ID of the immune rule to validate, adding domain meaning beyond the raw type. More details like format or examples would help, but the single parameter is adequately clarified.

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 validates an immune rule (Nivel 4) and provides three specific checks, making the purpose concrete. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like review_automatica by focusing on immune rules and their validation workflow, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 for validating 'automatica' rules marked as immune, listing the analysis steps. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or mention exclusions, leaving the usage guidance somewhat implicit.

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