validate_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no extra behavioral detail, such as whether the tool returns a report, how violations are reported, or whether it scans a single file or the whole project. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich them.

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 tight sentence with zero filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the core meaning. It is appropriately concise for a simple validation tool.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, and two enum-typed parameters, the one-line description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret validation results, or how this validation relates to the many sibling validation tools. An agent would need to rely on the schema and external context to understand expected behavior.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description contributes no additional meaning to the parameters, such as how the 'rules' array is structured or how 'validationType' and 'format' interact. It adds no value beyond the 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 states a specific verb, 'validate', and a clear resource: 'code against architectural rules'. This differentiates it from sibling validation tools like validate_adr or validate_content_masking. However, it does not elaborate on the meaning of 'architectural rules' or the scope of validation, so it is clear but not maximally explicit.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With several sibling validation tools (validate_adr, validate_all_adrs, validate_content_masking), an agent cannot infer from the description which validator is appropriate for a given scenario. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are provided.

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