fetch_workflow_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list with a single matched rule and an optional error, which is adequate for a read-only fetch. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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 well-organized with Args/Returns sections and front-loads the main purpose. It is slightly verbose but not excessively so, and every sentence adds value.

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 simple parameter, existing output schema (described in description), and no nested objects, the description covers the essential parts: purpose, parameter, and return values. It could mention edge cases or error handling more explicitly.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the 'name' parameter: 'The name of the workflow rule to retrieve'. This is clear and sufficient for the single parameter.

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 retrieves a specific workflow rule by name, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like fetch_cc_rule_by_name and fetch_workflow_details, but does not explicitly differentiate from all other fetch tools.

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 explains when to use the tool (to retrieve a specific workflow rule by name) but does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives such as list_workflow_rules or fetch_workflow_details.

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