codesafe_audit_by_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, the return format (contexts + summary table skeleton), the cap on number of items, and the internal process (resolving bugIds via codesafe_bug_summary). This goes beyond minimal requirements and gives the agent a clear behavioral model.

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 three sentences: purpose, process, and return/read-only. Every sentence contributes necessary information and is front-loaded with the core action. No waste or redundancy.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be fully described. The description covers purpose, dependencies, limits, and return structure, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly. Minor omissions like error handling are acceptable given the complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains max_n (cap), rule_code (the rule), and task_id indirectly via context. However, task_id is not explicitly defined, and the description does not detail each parameter's format or constraints. It adds some meaning but could be more explicit.

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 clearly states the tool's function: batch-assemble audit contexts for up to max_n defects of one rule. It specifies the action (batch-assemble), resource (audit contexts for defects), and scope (one rule, capped). This distinguishes it from siblings like codesafe_audit_bug (single audit) and codesafe_bug_summary (summary only).

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 implies when to use the tool: when auditing multiple defects under a single rule in batch. It also mentions the internal dependency on codesafe_bug_summary and the cap with CODESAFE_AUDIT_BATCH_LIMIT, providing context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though siblings make this inferable.

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