apply_quality_rules

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

Annotations provide comprehensive behavioral information (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's burden is reduced. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, but also adds no meaningful behavioral context beyond what's already in structured fields. No information about what 'applying' entails operationally, side effects, or implementation details is provided.

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?

While technically brief, the description is poorly structured and contains redundant synonyms that don't add value. The multilingual repetition ('규칙 적용|표준 적용|apply rules|apply standards|follow conventions|적용해') creates noise without improving understanding. This isn't effective conciseness but rather under-specification disguised as 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 this is a tool with 2 parameters (one required), no output schema, and annotations covering safety aspects, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'applying quality rules' means operationally, what the tool actually does, or what kind of output/result to expect. For a tool that presumably performs some meaningful operation on code/quality standards, this leaves too much undefined.

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% with both parameters having clear descriptions and enumerated values, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how 'scope' and 'language' interact, provide examples of valid combinations, or clarify the meaning of 'all' scope or 'general' language context.

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 is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with synonyms ('규칙 적용|표준 적용|apply rules|apply standards|follow conventions|적용해 - Apply quality rules'). It doesn't specify what 'applying quality rules' actually means operationally - whether it's validation, transformation, analysis, or something else. While it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 'quality rules' rather than analysis or creation tasks, the purpose remains vague.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison to sibling tools like 'validate_code_quality' or 'suggest_improvements' that might serve similar functions. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and parameters.

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