Explains a toolmenu rule by its finding name (naming/vague-id), including what it checks, its default level, and how to change it; omit the rule to list all rules.
Explain a toolmenu rule by the name a finding gives (naming/vague-id): what it checks, its default level and how to change it. Without rule, lists every rule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule | No | The rule, as a finding names it: naming/vague-id, or just vague-id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return content (what the rule checks, its default level, how to change it) and the fallback behavior when no rule is supplied, which annotations do not convey.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core function front-loaded and the no-argument behavior appended. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.
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?
For a one-optional-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, both call modes, and the shape of the returned explanation. Only a note on error behavior for an unrecognized rule name is missing.
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 100%, so the accepted identifier format is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the accepted format ("naming/vague-id, or just vague-id") and explains the optional-parameter semantics via the "Without rule, lists every rule" clause, but adds little beyond that.
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 names a specific verb ("Explain") and resource ("toolmenu rule") and even enumerates what the explanation covers (checks, default level, how to change it). It is unambiguous versus the siblings snapshot_menu, diff_menus and check_session, though it never names them to make the routing explicit.
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?
It gives the trigger condition clearly ("by the name a finding gives") plus a second, distinct usage mode: omitting the rule lists every rule. That covers both how to call it and when to use the no-argument form. There is no explicit exclusion or mention of an alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.