instinct

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does (renders patterns in config format), mentions that unknown format values return empty content, and specifies the return structure. However, it doesn't cover potential error conditions or performance characteristics like rate limits.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, parameter details, and return values. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The formatting with clear sections enhances readability.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, usage context, parameter details, and return structure. The output schema exists, so the description appropriately doesn't need to explain return values in depth beyond the high-level overview provided.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It provides comprehensive parameter semantics: explains what 'fmt' represents (target platform), lists all valid values with examples, documents the default value, and describes the behavior for unknown values (returns empty content string). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Render rule-level patterns') and resources ('target editor's config format'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_rules() by mentioning it avoids hand-translation. It explicitly names target platforms like Cursor's .cursorrules, providing concrete examples.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when you want rules in a specific platform's rules file') and when not to use it (for Anthropic-specific outputs, use export_claude_md() or export_skill() instead). It clearly distinguishes this tool from three specific sibling alternatives.

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