get-style-rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns 'full detail' including 'configured rules and custom instructions', which is useful context, but it does not disclose potential errors, authorization requirements, or read-only semantics beyond the verb 'get'. This is reasonable for a read operation but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key detail. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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 single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description adequately indicates what the tool returns (full detail including configured rules and custom instructions). It could also mention error handling or differences from related tools, but given the low complexity, the description is nearly 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 input schema already defines 'styleId' as 'The unique identifier of the style rule' with 100% coverage. The description only says 'Given an id', which adds no additional semantic meaning. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 operation ('get') and the resource ('single style rule'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-style-rules by focusing on a single item and 'full detail'. This is a specific verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity.

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 phrase 'Given an id' implies that this tool is used when you have a specific style rule ID and want its complete details, but no explicit comparison or exclusion of alternatives like list-style-rules or get-custom-instruction is provided. The usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.

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