Add a project-specific rule to enforce custom checks. Define name, description, scope (Git, Jira, or all), and action (block or warn) to tailor safety checks for the current project.
Añadir una regla propia que solo aplica al proyecto actual.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Nombre de la regla | |
| scope | Yes | Ambito | |
| action | Yes | Accion | |
| description | Yes | Descripcion de la regla |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.15Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Añadir' implies a state-changing action, but the description does not mention permissions, idempotency, whether it can overwrite existing rules, or what happens if a rule with the same name already exists. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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, direct sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the essential fact: this is a project-scoped rule addition. It is appropriately concise.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description needs to compensate by explaining side effects, prerequisites, and how this differs from similar rule tools. It only states the basic action and scope, leaving important contextual information missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently.
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 fully documents all four parameters with names and descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds the project-scope context but does not enrich the meaning of the individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clear verb ('Añadir'), a resource ('regla'), and a specific scope ('solo aplica al proyecto actual'). It is understandable, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like df_rule_create or df_rule_project_override, so it falls short of full clarity.
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 phrase 'solo aplica al proyecto actual' implies this is for project-scoped rules, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus df_rule_create or df_rule_project_override. Usage context is present but alternatives and exclusion conditions are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.