fetch_rule

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the return type (Dict with rule structure and metadata) but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, error conditions, or rate limits. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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 extremely concise, using a clear and standard format (description, Args, Returns). Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values extensively. It correctly mentions the return type. However, it lacks information on error handling or usage constraints. For a simple fetch tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 description adds meaning to the sole parameter by specifying 'Name of the rule to retrieve' in the Args section. Since schema coverage is 0%, this explanation is valuable and clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 fetches rule details by rule name. It identifies the specific resource (rule) and the unique identifier (name), distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch by ID or list rules. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from fetch_cc_rule_by_name, which may be similar.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch_cc_rule_by_id, fetch_cc_rules_list, or fetch_rule_design_notes. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for optimal use.

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