check_rules

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that falsified documented rules are reported as documentation/behavior conflicts, which is a useful behavioral trait, but it omits critical details like whether the tool mutates state, what permissions are required, or how it handles non-documented rules.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then efficiently describes the rule format. It uses compact notation and avoids unnecessary words, though the dense structure may be slightly cryptic for quick parsing.

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?

With no annotations, an output schema, and complex rules parameter, the description is partially complete. It thoroughly covers the rules parameter but fails to explain the 'feature' parameter or clarify what 'original' refers to, which are critical for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides a detailed explanation of the 'rules' parameter, including the structure and allowed values for each rule, which adds significant meaning beyond the schema. However, it completely ignores the required 'feature' parameter, leaving a substantial gap.

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 begins with 'Check observer-authored rules against the original,' which states a verb and resource, but 'original' is undefined and the tool is not clearly distinguished from siblings like falsify_claim or list_rules. The subsequent rule format details add specificity but don't fully clarify the tool's core purpose relative to its ecosystem.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as falsify_claim or list_rules. The description only explains the rule structure, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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