rule_pack_validate

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description reinforces these by calling itself 'Read-only' and adds specific behavioral traits: it validates without running diagnostics or writing state, and returns counts and schema errors. Although consistent, the annotation coverage is high, so the description adds moderate extra value.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads key information ('Read-only') and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and limitations with no extraneous words. Every part earns its place.

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?

While the output schema exists and the description mentions what is returned (counts, errors, optional descriptors), it completely omits parameter guidance. For a tool with three parameters and no parameter descriptions, this makes the description insufficient for correct invocation, reducing contextual completeness.

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 has three parameters (projectId, projectRef, includeDescriptors) with 0% description coverage in the schema. The description does not explain the purpose or usage of any parameter, leaving the agent to guess how to fill them. This is a critical gap that severely impacts usability.

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 identifies it as a read-only validation tool for rule packs, specifying the file types (.mako/rules), the scope (cross-file declarations), and the outputs (pack/rule counts, schema errors, optional descriptors). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it does not run diagnostics or write Reef state.

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 implies usage during rule-pack authoring and clearly states what the tool does and does not do (no diagnostics, no writing). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to choose this over other rule-related tools, so guidance on tool selection is indirect.

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