validate_rules

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond 'validate'. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it fails to indicate side effects (likely none), authentication needs, or return format. A validation tool should at minimum state it is read-only, which is missing.

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, which is appropriately concise and front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it could benefit from additional context without sacrificing 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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the validation result looks like, how errors are reported, or the behavior when rules or file content are missing. The rich schema partially compensates, but the lack of output description leaves a significant gap.

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 6 parameters, providing clear semantics for each field. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already offers, meriting the 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 'Validate code against architectural rules' clearly specifies the action (validate) and the resource (code against rules). It is specific enough to distinguish from tools like 'list_directory' or 'write_file', but among validation siblings like 'validate_adr' it lacks differentiation, as 'architectural rules' could overlap with ADR validation.

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 the many validation siblings (e.g., 'validate_adr', 'validate_content_masking'). The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the name and schema.

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