describe_validation_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and clearly states 'Read-only, no side effects.' It also details the return dict contents (commit_check_version, merged config, supported check types, enabled rules). This is transparent and accurate.

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 front-loaded with the main action and return value. It uses two paragraphs and a bullet-like list for parameters. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter list could be more structured. Overall, it is appropriately sized.

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 that an output schema exists, the description already covers return values. It also explains the tool's use case, differentiates from siblings, and covers all three optional parameters. It is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: config (inline JSON overrides), repo_path (path to repo for config loading), config_path (path to custom config file). These explanations add meaning beyond the schema properties, which only have type and default.

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: 'Return enabled commit-check rules after merging defaults, repo config, and inline overrides.' It specifies the verb 'Return' and the resource 'enabled commit-check rules,' distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform actual validation.

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 says 'Use this to inspect which validation rules are currently active before running any validation. Helps debug rule configuration and check which checks will be applied.' It implies when to use and hints at alternatives (the validate_* tools), but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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