basecoat_rules_enforcer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered structurally. The description adds that results are 'indexed technical constraints' spanning four categories, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or how auditing output is shaped.

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?

Two sentences with the stage marker front-loaded and no filler; every clause carries information about scope or next action. The bracketed stage tag is slightly meta but useful for pipeline ordering.

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?

For an 8-parameter, no-output-schema retrieval/audit tool, the description covers what is retrieved and the downstream step, and the schema covers each parameter. It still omits how the two modes (id/query lookup vs code/html auditing) relate and when to supply which, leaving a gap an agent must guess at.

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% across all 8 parameters, including enum explanations for category and environment, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, which is the baseline 3 when structured fields are already complete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (retrieve indexed technical implementation constraints) and enumerates the four covered domains: Tailwind v4 syntax, FSM data-state contracts, CSS variable tokens, and semantic HTML landmarks. It is clear what it returns, though it does not directly distinguish itself from near-name siblings like get_rhythm_rules, get_design_rules, or enforce_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 [STAGE 2] tag and the trailing 'Next step: Call basecoat_creative_director or basecoat_component_syntax' place the tool in a workflow and route the agent onward. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over the overlapping rules/rhythm siblings, so usage is implied rather than specified.

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