validate_rules

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only check but never says so, nor does it state whether validation aborts anything, whether it's a pass/fail gate, or what happens on failure — a meaningful gap for a tool whose job is producing a verdict.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with no filler, and the enumerated check categories are front-loaded. It would benefit from a second short sentence on usage or return shape, but nothing present is wasted.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should say what a validation result looks like (list of findings? boolean?) and how projectRoot is resolved. Neither is covered, leaving the agent unable to predict the response or the parameter's role.

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 single parameter 'projectRoot' has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. It is not stated whether projectRoot is optional (it isn't marked required), what it defaults to, or which directory the validation runs against.

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 ('Validates') and resource ('canonical rules') and enumerates the concrete error classes checked (schema errors, duplicate IDs, formatting conflicts, adapter warnings, token budget). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_rules, upsert_rule, or apply_sync, though it never explicitly names them.

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 call this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer that this is a pre-flight check before preview_sync/apply_sync, but the description gives no such guidance.

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