Return a concise evidence pack for one rule ID returned by search_rules. Includes official URLs, scope limits, and no legal-compliance verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Exact rule ID returned by search_rules |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it states the output is concise, names included content (official URLs, scope limits), and explicitly excludes legal-compliance verdicts. This goes beyond the schema, though it does not discuss errors, authentication, or side effects.
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 front-loaded sentence that conveys action, input source, output contents, and a limiting constraint with no filler 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?
For a one-parameter, read-style tool with no output schema, the description explains the input source, output nature, included content, and a key exclusion. A little more detail about the pack's structure or format would improve completeness, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 already fully describes 'id' as 'Exact rule ID returned by search_rules' with 100% coverage. The description restates this source constraint without adding format details, examples, or additional meaning 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a concrete resource ('evidence pack') for a single rule ID. It also names the input source ('returned by search_rules'), which distinguishes it from the sibling search_rules tool.
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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: after obtaining a rule ID from search_rules, and only for one rule at a time. It does not enumerate when not to use it, but the contextual dependency on search_rules is explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools have clearly distinct roles: search_rules finds relevant rule IDs, while get_evidence_pack retrieves detailed evidence for a specific ID. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tools follow the verb_noun pattern consistently: 'search_rules' and 'get_evidence_pack'. The naming is predictable and reflects each tool's action and target resource.
With only 2 tools, the server sits at the thin end of the scale. However, the scope is intentionally narrow—a search-and-retrieve workflow—so the count is borderline but not unreasonable.
The server covers the core discovery and retrieval loop for its curated rule index: search then fetch evidence. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to list all rules or browse by category, but these are workable for the stated purpose.