proxy_test_rule_match

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains the diagnostic output but does not explicitly confirm that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. The absence of any warning or side-effect disclosure reduces transparency.

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, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys purpose and output.

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 5 parameters, nested object, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality well. It mentions diagnostics and winner, but could briefly summarize the two modes (simulate vs exchange) for completeness.

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% (all 5 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond summarizing the overall behavior. Baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'Test' and the resource 'interception rules', and specifies the output of 'detailed per-field pass/fail diagnostics and effective winner by priority'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list or modify rules.

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 a diagnostic use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like proxy_list_rules or proxy_update_rule. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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