generate_rules_from_cognition

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions building a 'pending shadow Rule' but does not clarify whether the action is destructive, requires permissions, or what side effects occur. The term 'pending' is vague.

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 sentence of 20 words, which is concise and front-loaded with the primary action. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and a complex governance operation, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return value, the lifecycle of the shadow rule, or how inputs like intentConfidence and ruleType influence behavior.

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%, yet the description only explains the 'language, pattern, suggestion' triple but omits the other 5 parameters (intent, filePath, ruleType, projectId, intentConfidence). No parameter meaning is added beyond the schema's empty descriptions.

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 it learns a governance rule from a triple of language, pattern, suggestion, which is specific but uses jargon ('cognition closure', 'pending shadow Rule') that may obscure the core action. It does not sufficiently distinguish from sibling tools like cognition_query or confirm_rule.

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 such as capture_diff, query_rules, or resolve_conflict. The description lacks context for appropriate invocation or exclusions.

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