aegis_create_rule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'It writes nothing', which resolves the tension between the name 'create_rule' and a read-only hint. It also adds genuinely new context: the output is a prompt, not a saved rule, so the caller must persist it. It does not cover return format details beyond that.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core transformation stated first and the critical caveat (nothing is written) immediately after. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so by saying the result is a prompt for drafting a rule rather than a rule itself. Combined with the manual-save instruction, an agent has enough to call and use it, though the prompt's shape is not further described.

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 100% and all three parameters (description, domain, rule_type with its enum) are documented in the schema, so the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 transformation (natural language concern -> prompt that drafts a governance rule), which is far more precise than the name 'create_rule' alone would suggest. It does not, however, name or contrast itself against any sibling such as aegis_list_rules or aegis_scan.

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 implies the usage context (drafting a rule before saving it manually) and gives a workflow instruction ('save the drafted rule under .aegis/rules/ yourself'), but never states when to prefer this tool over the siblings or any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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