lc_rule_instructions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'provides' instructions, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires authentication, has rate limits, affects system state, or what format the instructions take. The description is too vague about behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another documenting the parameter. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the parameter documentation could be integrated more smoothly rather than as a separate 'Args:' section.

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 an output schema (which handles return values), one parameter, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and documents the parameter, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. For a tool with output schema support, this is borderline complete but has clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the single parameter 'root_path' with minimal context: 'Root directory path.' This adds some meaning beyond the schema's type information but doesn't explain what this path represents, format expectations, or why it's required. With one parameter and low coverage, this is insufficient compensation.

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: 'Provides step-by-step instructions for creating custom rules.' This is a specific verb ('provides') + resource ('instructions') combination that explains what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like lc_changed, lc_missing, or lc_outlines, which prevents a perfect score.

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. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools. The only usage hint is the parameter documentation, which doesn't address tool selection.

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