check_custom_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states that it 'Returns violations found,' which implies a read-only analysis but does not specify whether it modifies anything, requires special permissions, or how results are formatted. The lack of details beyond the basic output leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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, compact sentence with no unnecessary words. It effectively states the action and expected result, earning full marks for conciseness and structure.

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 no output schema and minimal behavioral context, the description is thin but adequate for a simple analysis tool. It covers the core function and return, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or side effects. For a tool with three parameters and no annotations, it is minimally complete but leaves room for improvement.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (path, ruleSet, severity), so the schema already documents each parameter clearly. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, giving a baseline score of 3.

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 tool's action ('Run custom rules analysis on a directory') and its output ('Returns violations found'). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_custom_rules and set_custom_rule which manage rules rather than execute analysis.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or conditions under which another tool should be preferred. The purpose implies usage for analyzing a directory for rule violations, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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