mock_rule_get

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavior: fixture rules include the stored fixture in the result. However, it does not state that this is a read-only op, what happens for non-fixture rules, or what max_chars trims, leaving the behavioral picture only partially transparent.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the core action first and appends the conditional caveat. No filler, no redundancy; 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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and a low-richness description, the definition is too thin: it offers no help choosing among the many mock_* and mock_rule_* siblings, no clarification of the extra relationship between rule and stored fixture, and no call of max_chars's effect. The output schema spares the need to explain return values, but the selection and param semantics gaps remain.

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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate for rule_id and max_chars semantics — it does not. The description relies on the word 'fixture' to clarify rule_id only by implication and never explains that max_chars constrains the displayed output, leaving parameters substantially under-documented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Show one rule document') and adds a valuable distinguishing detail about fixture rules returning the stored fixture. The word 'one' signals a single-item getter against list-style siblings like mock_rule_list, but it never names those alternatives explicitly, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 given for when to call this tool instead of mock_rule_list, mock_get, or mock_rule_write. There is no mention of prerequisites such as needing a rule_id, how to obtain one, or when the fixture portion is relevant, so an agent gets no decision support.

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