explain_frankability_rule

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains that each rule has an `explain()` method returning human-readable descriptions, examples, and rationale, and specifies the return JSON fields. It doesn't state error behavior but is adequate for a read-only lookup.

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 efficiently structured with an opening purpose sentence, usage context, and clear Args/Returns sections. It avoids verbose language and front-loads the key action.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description provides sufficient context about usage, parameter format, and return value. It doesn't explain possible error cases, but with a clear return signature and usage, it's complete enough for an agent to invoke successfully.

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 schema only defines rule_id as a string, but the description's Args section elaborates with a description and concrete examples ('FA301', 'FA806'), making the parameter's meaning clear despite 0% schema coverage.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool returns the documentation block for a specific frank-audit rule, using the verb 'Return' and a specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like audit_component or apply_frankability_edit_ops by focusing on rule documentation.

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?

The description explicitly provides a usage scenario: 'Use this when an agent encounters an unfamiliar finding and needs context before deciding on a fix.' This gives clear context, though it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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