Get project approval rule

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 well-covered. The description adds the 'project-level' scoping, clarifying the resource scope. It does not contradict annotations and provides no additional behavioral traits (like permissions or rate limits) but is consistent and sufficient given the annotations.

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, concise sentence that directly states the action and object. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous wording. Every word contributes to clarity, achieving high informational density.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with only two required parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete. It specifies the resource type and the identification method. No additional behavioral or error-handling details are necessary given the annotations and schema.

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 documents one parameter (project) with a description, and the other (approval_rule_id) has a self-explanatory name. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it simply restates that the rule is retrieved 'by ID' and mentions 'project-level' without elaborating on constraints or formats. With 50% schema coverage, the description does not significantly compensate, but the parameter semantics are clear from the names.

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's purpose: 'Get one project-level merge-request approval rule by ID.' The verb 'Get' combined with the specific resource (project-level MR approval rule) and the scoping by ID effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_project_approval_rules (which lists all) and create/update/delete variants.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_project_approval_rules). However, the name and sibling tools make the context obvious: this is for fetching a single approval rule by ID. No explicit exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving the usage guidance to inference.

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