rule_memory

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds contextual detail about aggregating descriptors and history, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like auth requirements or data freshness.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and usage context with no redundancy. Every word adds value despite some internal jargon ('Reef 9').

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 presence of an output schema and 4 parameters with no descriptions in schema or description, the tool lacks essential information about parameter semantics. The description does not explain how to invoke the tool (e.g., which parameters are needed). This is a significant gap for an AI agent.

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 0%, and the description offers no information about any of the 4 parameters (projectId, projectRef, sourceNamespace, limit). Description fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions, leaving agents without guidance on how to use parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool aggregates rule descriptors and finding history to show rule states (active, acknowledged, resolved, suppressed). It distinguishes from siblings like list_reef_rules by focusing on memory/state before changes.

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?

Explicitly says 'before making changes' providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools, slightly limiting guidance.

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