rule_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The [READ] prefix signals a non-destructive read operation, and it clarifies that target can be omitted for the default. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the uuid is invalid/not found, whether there are permission requirements, or what the returned 'full detail' actually contains.

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 compact and front-loaded with the [READ] tag and core purpose in the first line. The Args section is formatted clearly. No wasted words, though the docstring style is slightly more verbose than strictly necessary.

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 read-only detail lookup tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, where the identifier comes from, and how to handle the optional target. However, it's missing information about expected return structure and what 'full detail' encompasses, which matters since there's no output schema to compensate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains uuid ('Rule uuid (OPNsense) or id (pfSense), from list_rules') quite well, which adds real semantic value beyond the bare 'Uuid' schema label. The target parameter is explained in one line. However, the description doesn't cover edge cases like expected format or constraints on these parameters.

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 returns 'One rule's full detail' by uuid/id, distinguishing it from list_rules and rule_stats siblings. It explicitly identifies it as a read operation with the [READ] prefix. It references list_rules as the source for the identifier, adding useful context.

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 usage (get rule details by its uuid/id from list_rules) and explains the target parameter ('omit for the default'). However, it doesn't explicitly compare against siblings like rule_stats or rule_states, nor state when NOT to use this tool. The guidance is adequate but not explicitly differentiated.

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