get_rule_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the return value content (WCAG criteria, impact, tags, help URL), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention error handling (e.g., invalid ruleId), side effects, or whether any permissions are needed. As a read-only getter, the absence of side-effect information is less critical, but it's still a gap.

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 immediately states the action and resource, then lists key information returned. Every word contributes value with no filler or repetition.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the description adequately explains what the tool does and what the return contains. It could mention behavior for a non-existent ruleId, but for a straightforward getter, the description is sufficiently 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 covers 100% of parameters with a helpful description for ruleId (including an example). The tool description only restates the concept of a specific axe-core rule without adding new details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 "Get" and clearly identifies the resource as "detailed information about a specific axe-core rule," listing the included content (WCAG criteria, impact, tags, help URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_rules and get_status.

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 implies usage: when you need details for a specific rule, identified by ruleId. It clearly states the tool's scope (specific rule vs. listing all rules with get_rules), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. This is clear context but not full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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