rules_match

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond this: case-insensitive regex matching, the specific fields searched, and that the result is a list of matching rules. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a useful sibling distinction, then concise Parameters and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes either purpose, usage guidance, or interface context, with no filler.

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 tool with one parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It explains the search scope, case-insensitivity, the alternative tool, and the return shape. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single pattern parameter. The description's Parameters section adds no meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline expectation of 3: the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 action—'Search for rules in the ruleset using a regular expression'—and clarifies that matching is against both name and summary. It also differentiates itself from rules_search by naming what it does NOT do (full-content search). This gives an agent a clear, unambiguous purpose.

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 explicitly says to use rules_search instead when full rule content must be searched, drawing a clear boundary between the two tools. It also implies this tool is appropriate when searching only name and summary is sufficient. This is strong when-to-use guidance.

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