explain_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('Look up') and lists the content returned. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, nor does it mention authorization requirements, rate limits, or error handling for invalid rule IDs. A 3 is adequate but leaves 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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, includes concrete examples in parentheses, and conveys the full return intent. There is no wasted text; 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, the parameter, and the core return values. An output schema exists to handle return type details, so the description does not need to reiterate those. However, it omits mention of what happens if the rule ID is invalid or missing (e.g., error or null response), which would make it more complete.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in the input schema), so the description must compensate. It adds value by specifying the parameter is a 'rule id' and provides examples (SEC001, STR002, CMT004), hinting at a consistent format. However, it does not fully specify the pattern or acceptable formats, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 states the verb 'Look up', identifies the resource as a 'gristmill rule', and specifies exactly what information is returned: rationale, what it catches, what it misses, and how to suppress it. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'verify', which likely performs a different function.

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 when you need details about a specific rule (e.g., by its ID), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'verify', nor does it provide guidance on when not to use it or any prerequisites. More specific exclusions or comparisons would improve this dimension.

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