get_rule_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields (description, severity, remediation guidance) but does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, mention any side effects, or describe error behavior such as not-found cases. This is acceptable for a simple getter, but omits some behavioral context.

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 directly states what the tool does without any filler or redundancy. It earns its place in the definition.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the purpose and the key return values. It could mention error handling or exact output structure, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably 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 provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter ruleId, including an example format. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema is self-explanatory.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific Agentforce SAST rule', listing the included content: description, severity, and remediation guidance. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_scan_rules, which only lists rules, and scan_agentforce_rule, which likely executes a scan.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explicitly mention that it should be used when the rule ID is already known, nor does it exclude cases where listing or scanning is more appropriate. The description is purely definitional and lacks contextual direction.

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