get_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: no network call is made and a missing ID returns {"error": "rule not found"}. Read-only intent is conveyed by '조회' (retrieve), but it is not stated outright, and no note on output size or caching is given.

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?

Two tight sentences — what it returns first, then when to use it — with the error contract appended. No filler, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description still covers the error case. For a single-parameter lookup with a documented upstream source of IDs, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 100% and the single rule_id parameter already carries example IDs (NIS-AI-M01, OWASP-LLM-2025-01) plus its source. The description adds the same ID-source guidance but no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (retrieve full security rule text by rule ID) and lists what the payload contains (evidence sources, detection criteria, safe remediation examples). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_rules, which finds rules rather than fetching one by ID.

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?

Gives a clear trigger — when the agent needs the rationale for why a finding fired — and names the ID sources (finding.rule_id, search_rules results), effectively documenting the upstream workflow. It never explicitly states the inverse (use search_rules to locate rules by keyword), so the alternative is only implied.

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