author_ads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the report contents (per-rule sections, missing required sections, a scaffold template) and the two input modes, but says nothing about whether anything is written to disk, what permissions are needed, or how the scaffold should be applied.

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 tight sentences with the substantive report contents front-loaded and the input modes compressed into a trailing clause. No padding, though the second sentence largely duplicates schema information.

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?

For a two-parameter, zero-required reporting tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is produced and how input is supplied, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gaps around write side effects and config expectations keep it from a 5.

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 both parameters document mutual exclusivity and path resolution rules. The description's 'Accepts inline yaml or a file path' merely restates the schema, adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (Report) and resource (each detection rule's ADS sections, missing required sections, and a scaffolded rsigma.ads.* template), which is precise enough to distinguish it from parse_rule or lint_rules. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus lint_rules, validate_rules, or parse_rule, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'under the active config' hints at a configuration dependency but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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