preclear_rule_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is read-only and deterministic, which signals safety and reproducibility. However, it does not describe what the checks actually validate, what failure/success looks like, or any side effects or prerequisites, leaving meaningful gaps.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler. Key qualifiers ('deterministic', 'read-only') are front-loaded, but the sentence is slightly jargon-heavy and could benefit from a brief expansion to define 'preclear checks' without becoming verbose.

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 opaque required request object, three undocumented parameters, and absence of annotations, the description is not sufficient for correct invocation. An output schema may exist, but it does not make up for missing input semantics, so the overall context remains incomplete.

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 does not compensate. The required 'request' object, 'rulebase', and 'device_group' parameters are left entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot determine what content the request object should contain or how the optional parameters influence the check.

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 ('Run ... preclear checks') and a clear resource/timing ('before a rule change is considered'). It distinguishes the tool from the get/list/search siblings by framing it as a pre-change validation step. The term 'preclear' echoes the tool name, but the added 'deterministic read-only' qualifier clarifies the nature of the operation.

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 gives an explicit trigger context: use this before a rule change is considered. This is clearer than merely implying usage, but it does not enumerate alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it relative to the sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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