art.qa.rule

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

With no annotations provided at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation and 'full definition' hints at return content, but there's no disclosure of error behavior for unknown IDs, response format, or performance characteristics. For a simple getter, this is adequate but minimal.

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?

A single 12-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource while wasting zero tokens. The qualifier 'full' adds meaningful scoping that 'definition' alone would lack, and every word earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity — one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects, 100% schema coverage — there is very little left undisclosed. 'Full definition' suggests return richness, and the sibling art.qa.list_rules handles the multi-rule case. Minor remaining gaps are low-stakes for a getter: no mention of not-found behavior or whether the output is compatible with an enum or known set.

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 provides 100% coverage of the single rule_id parameter, including a realistic example ('canvas.dimensions'). The description's 'by its ID' merely echoes the schema and adds no new semantic information, which lands it at the baseline of 3.

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 has a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('full definition of a specific QA rule'), and a precise selection mechanism ('by its ID'). The deliberate use of 'specific' and 'by its ID' cleanly differentiates it from the natural sibling art.qa.list_rules.

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 phrasing implies this is used when a rule ID is already known — presumably from art.qa.list_rules — but the description never explicitly states when to use it versus a sibling tool like art.qa.batch. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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