get_guardrail

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing what comes back (full check and action configuration alongside status and ownership) and by flagging the id-discovery prerequisite. It says nothing about permissions or scoping, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, and every clause carries information. The trailing "and returns the full check and action configuration alongside status and ownership" is a run-on appended to a sentence that already stated it returns checks and actions, making it slightly redundant.

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 an output schema covering return shape, annotations covering safety, and a fully documented single parameter, the description fills the remaining gaps: discovery path, ordering relative to update/delete, and the scope of returned configuration. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the guardrail_id description already documents the UUID-or-slug format including the guard_ prefix. The description restates "by id or slug" but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Fetch one guardrail") plus the retrieval key (id or slug) and what is included (full checks and actions). It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_guardrails, so an agent can choose between them without opening a schema.

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?

Names the discovery alternative ("use list_guardrails to discover ids first") and the downstream tools it precedes (update_guardrail, delete_guardrail) with the condition that selects it: needing the exact enforcement policy. Both when-to-use and alternatives are explicit.

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